Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

School Transport

Tony Baldry: Which categories of children attending the proposed trust schools she expects to be entitled to (a) free and (b) subsidised school transport.

Phil Hope: All children attending their nearest suitable maintained school receive free transport if the journey is over three miles, or over two miles for children under the age of eight. In future, primary pupils from low-income families will receive free transport if they live more than two miles from school. Secondary pupils from low-income families will receive free transport to any one of their three nearest suitable schools if the journey is between two and six miles.

Tony Baldry: Every day, a number of parents in Bicester exercising parental preference hire a coach to take their children to Marlborough school in Woodstock, which is more than six miles away. In a semi-rural area such as mine, people who wish to express parental preference can do so only if they pay for it, which is unfair for everyone. It is unfair for parents who cannot pay, and it is unfair for parents who have to pay to exercise preference. With respect, the Education and Inspections Bill will not change that situation.

Phil Hope: The Bill includes a number of important measures that will help families with transport. The cost of transport is a barrier, particularly for low-income families, which is why the Bill extends the entitlement to free school transport. There is a general duty on local authorities to assess all pupils' travel needs; local authorities' current focus is on 7 per cent. of pupils. When the new travel plans in the Bill—another measure for disadvantaged pupils against which, regrettably, Liberal Democrats voted last night—come into force more families will benefit from the opportunity for their children to attend the school of their choice.

Jeff Ennis: The Minister will know that the top 200 performing state schools have two factors in common: the lowest number of children receiving free school meals and the lowest number of children with statements. The bottom 200 state schools have the highest number of children receiving free school meals and the highest number of children with statements. Does the Minister agree that the grand objective of trust schools is to achieve a better social mix, not just in trust schools but across all schools?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the nature of social segregation in different schools. He will be pleased that the Bill, which will proceed to Committee in a few days' time, includes new measures to ensure that local admission forums measure free school meal allocations and, indeed, other allocations in schools. The forums and, indeed, the school adjudicator can measure and assess the problems described by my hon. Friend. Indeed, the schools commissioner will produce a report every two years to show what progress has been made in reducing those problems.

Science

Stephen Crabb: If she will make a statement on the teaching of science in secondary schools.

Mark Lancaster: If she will make a statement on the teaching of science in secondary schools.

Jacqui Smith: The chief inspector's latest annual report shows that the quality of science teaching and learning is good or better in nearly three quarters of secondary schools. We are improving that teaching and learning further by making the school science curriculum more engaging; improving teacher recruitment; providing more and better professional development; and introducing a new statutory entitlement to study science programmes leading to at least two GCSEs.

Stephen Crabb: I thank the Minister for her reply. Yesterday, the CBI warned of the erosion of core science and engineering skills in this country, describing the decline in the number of science graduates as a car crash in slow motion. Does the Minister agree that the situation will not be turned around without serious improvement in the quality of science teaching in British schools? When 40 per cent. of all chemistry lessons are taught by non-chemists, is it any wonder that the country is not producing enough 18-year-olds with a love of, or an interest in, science?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, as are the CBI and others, to identify the importance for the economy of high numbers of science understanding and science graduates. That is why, for example, the introduction of specialised diplomas with an emphasis on applied science in areas such as engineering is important and why we need to continue working, as he suggested, on the quality of teachers. It is reassuring that, whereas in 1997–98 we recruited 2,790 people to teacher training places for science, in 2004–05 the number increased to 3,460.

Mark Lancaster: May I declare an interest, as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests? Given the Minister's previous answer, what message does she think is sent to our sixth-form science students when they discover during national science week that the chemistry department of the five-star Sussex university is to be closed?

Jacqui Smith: Like other higher education institutions, the University of Sussex is, rightly, an autonomous organisation. Students in the south-east will be reassured to know not only that the number of home full-time undergraduates studying chemistry has risen by 6 per cent. since 1999 but that the Higher Education Funding Council, working with the surrounding universities, particularly Reading, Southampton and Surrey, has already ensured that the places lost at Sussex will be provided at those other universities.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I, for one, am very grateful for the extensive work that we have done to renew science facilities in schools. However, the reality is that the number of young women who are entering engineering apprenticeships is pitifully low, because we do not have sufficient resources aimed at promoting and taking women into work. What will my right hon. Friend do to address that very low figure and try to improve the number of women going into engineering apprenticeships?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend has a strong background in this area and has pushed me on numerous occasions on precisely that issue. There is the work that I know that she supported in respect of women in science and engineering, the task of ensuring that there are role models for young people, the introduction of the specialised engineering diploma that I mentioned previously and the task of ensuring that, as we improve information, advice and guidance for young people, we enable, for example, young women to undertake taster courses in areas such as engineering so that they realise that engineering is not only something for them, but needs their talents.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps this is the moment to remind the House that the questions are about science in secondary schools.

Sarah Teather: The Department's own research has pointed to a crisis in specialist physics and chemistry teachers in deprived areas in particular. The Institute of Physics has called on the Government to adopt recruitment targets in the individual sciences rather than science as a whole. Why have they not done that?

Jacqui Smith: I refer the hon. Lady to the figures that I gave previously, which show that the Government have made considerable progress in increasing recruitment to initial teacher training of science teachers. I also refer her to the important work—the £51 million project—being carried out jointly by the Government and the Wellcome Trust to develop science learning centres around the country, which are contributing to the continuing professional development of science teachers throughout the country.

David Taylor: In the science curriculum in mainstream British secondary schools from September, creationism is to be taught alongside Darwin's theory of evolution. Does the Minister welcome that, as students should understand the context in which scientific ideas arise and reinterpretation of empirical evidence can generate scientific controversy?

Jacqui Smith: In fact, neither creationism, nor intelligent design are taught as subjects in schools and they are not specified in the programme of study for the science curriculum. In fact the national curriculum for science clearly sets out that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution and that that is a fact. As my hon. Friend identifies, there will be opportunities, perhaps in RE lessons or in science, to consider scientific controversy and the issue of creationism may come up in that context, but it is not, of course, a factual element of the science curriculum.

Nick Gibb: In the spirit of the consensus that was developed yesterday, I thought that, together, we might tackle science teaching in our schools. One of the unforeseen consequences of the Conservative Government's making science compulsory was the proliferation of the double science award GCSE, which is now almost universal in the state sector and likely to remain so even with the Minister's reforms. For someone going on to study three sciences at A-level, that means a reduction of a third in the amount of science that he or she studies at GCSE. Does she agree that we need much better science teaching in our comprehensives and far more students studying the three separate sciences at GCSE?

Jacqui Smith: I was not so involved in the consensus yesterday that the hon. Gentleman is talking about—[Interruption.] I voted for the Second Reading of our Labour Bill, yes—[Interruption.] And Conservatives voted for a Labour Bill, as well.
	It is important that we ensure, in the way in which science is taught, particularly at key stage 4, that we provide our young people with both the knowledge and the enthusiasm to continue to study science at a later stage. That is why one of the things that we voted for yesterday was an entitlement for every pupil to study at least two science GCSEs. Part of the way in which that entitlement will be represented in schools will include the study of three separate science subjects. I am confident that, whether we are talking about the science and advanced science option, or the three single science options, that will provide young people with the knowledge and enthusiasm to carry on studying science at a later stage in greater numbers.

Trust Schools

Gordon Prentice: How many trust schools she expects to be established over the next four years.

Ruth Kelly: There are no targets for the number of trust schools to be established in the next four years. This is about schools making decisions that are right for them and their children in order to raise standards. It will be for individual schools to decide whether they want to acquire a trust, what form that trust should take, and how the trust will help to improve outcomes for pupils.

Gordon Prentice: Given that the Conservative party will try to amend the Bill to take it back to its White Paper stage and encourage the development of independent trust schools, is it not as plain as a pikestaff—I say this gently to my right hon. Friend—that this legacy legislation is completely dead in the water?

Ruth Kelly: No. I thought for a moment that I was going to agree with my hon. Friend on something, but sadly not. I can assure the House that I will never compel a school to become a trust school, although it should be an option for a local authority, where a school is failing, to look at whether a trust is one way in which it could raise standards. The Labour party does not agree with the Conservative party, which in the minority report of the Education and Skills Committee insisted that all schools should be compelled to become trust schools.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Rob Wilson.

Hon. Members: Ah!

Robert Wilson: I have a slightly different question. As more and more schools become independent trusts with additional freedoms over recruitment and pay, what does the Secretary of State think the implications will be for the teaching trade unions?

Ruth Kelly: I did wonder when I read the minority report whether the hon. Gentleman and his friends had really understood the proposals, and now I am confirmed in the fact that they do not. There is nothing in the proposals on trusts, or indeed in the White Paper, that gives trust schools additional freedom or flexibility on teachers' pay. Teachers' pay will still be set in exactly the framework of terms and conditions, set nationally and negotiated with the teacher unions, that community schools follow now.

Barry Sheerman: May I help my right hon. Friend with the question of what is as plain as a pikestaff? It is as plain as a pikestaff that any incoming Government of a party political complexion different from ours can change whatever they like in education—that is the truth of the matter. Can we just concentrate on the question about the partnerships of trusts that can be of great benefit to schools? There is already a track record of very good relationships with foundations and outside partners that are good for the schools, good for the students and good for the future of education. Can we not nail the myth that partnership is bad and an inward-looking school is good? That is not the case.

Ruth Kelly: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that schools should be looking outward to their communities, looking to establish deep and lasting partnerships, both with other schools and indeed with external partners, such as universities, FE colleges and business foundations, where they can make a difference to raising standards for their pupils. That is precisely what the trust school proposal in last night's Education and Inspections Bill was about.

David Willetts: There is a slight flavour of the morning after the night before, and I detect that a squabble about paternity has already broken out. May I assure the Secretary of State that we will be very responsible in our approach to raising and encouraging trust schools, which have now been given birth to? I realise that she does not like giving predictions, but will she at least consider offering some encouragement to schools to become trust schools—it is, after all, a policy that has now had widespread support on both sides of the House?

Ruth Kelly: The best encouragement for schools to become trust schools is to see what works. To see that, one has only to talk to head teachers, who already work with foundations and trusts, who can explain what difference that makes to pupils and to raising standards in their schools. It is my view that the more schools see that working in practice, the more will be interested in trusts, but it is right to have a voluntary approach because in the end head teachers know best what is in the interests of raising standards.

Mark Todd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that further work needs to be done on defining the risks that might be encountered by small primary schools in converting alone to a trust model? The evidence of foundation status and, before that, grant-maintained status in my constituency indicates that there are significant risks that governing bodies may not be aware of at the time.

Ruth Kelly: I know that my hon. Friend has deep concerns about the matter, and many in the House were scarred by the experience of grant-maintained schools, but I can give him the assurance that the trust school model is the antithesis of the grant-maintained school model, in that trusts remain as local authority-maintained schools, where local authorities are responsible for the financial control and for ensuring adequate financial controls in schools—indeed, they fund the schools and can withdraw the delegated funding where they consider that there is an issue to resolve, as well as being responsible for ensuring adequate standards.

Trust Schools

Andrew Turner: What discussions she has had with voluntary and charitable organisations on the implementation of her policy on trust schools.

Ruth Kelly: Both the Prime Minister and I have held a number of discussions with a range of stakeholders about the opportunities that trusts can offer. These stakeholders have included schools, local authorities, business foundations, and charitable and voluntary organisations. All these organisations may have much to offer in raising standards and improving outcomes, especially for pupils in our most disadvantaged areas.

Andrew Turner: May I assure the Secretary of State that the Conservative-led Isle of Wight council, which inherited from 20 years of Liberal Democrat control an education system that even the Liberal Democrats admitted was failing, is looking with enthusiasm on trust schools as a means of reversing that failure? Will she assure me that the regulation-making powers contained in the Bill, particularly in clauses 7, 8, 12, 17, 19, 22, 24 and 25 will be used with a light touch so as not to put off charities and other organisations offering trust status to schools?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We want a light-touch system. Where a school considers it to be in its interest to acquire a trust, it should have the opportunity to do that. That will help the school deepen its existing partnerships with its specialist schools relationships, and enable schools to build federations and collaboratives of schools working together to raise standards, which is particularly important in the light of our commitment to enable every young person from the age of 14 to study vocational education—yet again, a measure delivered by the Education and Inspections Bill.

David Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position with regard to schools that choose not to go down the trust route? Can she give us an assurance that they will not be disadvantaged in any way? She said that the private sector would support schools. Will she state that legislation will be drawn up to ensure that that will not be used to privatise schools?

Ruth Kelly: I can certainly give my hon. Friend those assurances. It will be laid down in legislation that trusts must be charities operating on a not-for-profit basis and overseen by the Charity Commission, as well as the local authority. In no sense will schools outside the trust school regime be disadvantaged by not being trust schools. They will be funded on exactly the same basis as any other local school, in both revenue and capital terms—yet again, a sharp contrast with the GM school policy operated by the Conservatives when they were in government.

FE Colleges (Dorset)

Tobias Ellwood: What assessment she has made of the level of staff salaries at colleges of further education in the Dorset area; and if she will make a statement.

Bill Rammell: No such assessment has been made. Colleges of further education are autonomous institutions that negotiate pay and conditions with staff and their unions, without Government involvement nationally or locally.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for that reply, but not for the answer itself. Colleges are waiting for a response. The Minister is aware of my concerns about education funding in Bournemouth in general. My question is specifically to do with the fact that staff salaries at further education colleges, such as Bournemouth and Poole college, are often significantly lower than those of staff teaching the same subjects in a school. I know that the Government have taken some initiatives, but as long as teachers are receiving £2,000 a year more at a school than at further education colleges, colleges will be unable to compete in recruiting and retaining staff—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is over-lengthy.

Bill Rammell: Let me be clear that negotiations are a matter for colleges and the trade unions. No college in the country would thank the Government for intervening directly on the issue. It all comes back to funding. Since 1997 the Government have increased funding to the further education sector by 48 per cent. in real terms, which compares favourably with the 14 per cent. real-terms cut that took place in the five years running up to 1997. We envisage that with those increased resources, greater flexibility as regards their use and a longer-term funding framework, colleges should be able to address the structural barriers—

Tobias Ellwood: That was 14 years ago.

Bill Rammell: It was, but we must compare like with like. The calls for higher pay from the Conservatives carry no credibility. They never delivered the resources when they were in power, and they would not do so if they got the chance again.

Michael Foster: I remind my hon. Friend that FE salaries in Dorset and elsewhere suffered a pay freeze and therefore a real-terms cut during the 1990s. When the funding gap is closed, as he has promised in this House, the issue of staff salary differentials, which the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) has described, should be dealt with, too.

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and know that he takes these issues very seriously. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the way in which we are reducing the funding gap between further education colleges and school sixth forms at the Association of Colleges conference back in October, the announcement was widely welcomed by the FE sector. We have made it clear that the gap will be reduced by 5 per cent. in the coming financial year, and it will be reduced by a further 3 per cent. in the following year. [Hon. Members: "Not enough"] I can hear Conservative Members, but if they are committed to cutting public spending, they need to say where they would find the funds.

Boris Johnson: I want to restore the glorious outbreak of harmony between Front Benchers on education reform. I agree with both my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and the Minister that we need to increase academic pay in FE and HE. Does the Minister agree that it is bizarre that the Liberal Democrats should oppose any reform that involves variable fees and yet at the same time support a strike by FE teachers in Dorset and elsewhere, the explicit purpose of which is that academics should have a larger share of the fees? Is not that position completely absurd and due to be overturned?

Bill Rammell: Now I am very confused. Conservative Back Benchers are calling for increased pay, but the shadow Minister has said that we should not support increased pay. The one thing that I agree with him on is that Liberal Democrat policy on higher education is completely untenable.

Special Educational Needs

Vincent Cable: What steps she is taking to reduce the time involved in statementing pupils with special needs in schools.

Bill Rammell: Following our 2004 special educational needs strategy—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dennis Skinner: He did not hear me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a reputation for sedentary interventions, but I would appreciate a lower decibel level.

Bill Rammell: I take it that my hon. Friend's remark was not directed at me.
	Following our 2004 special educational needs strategy, we established a team of SEN advisers. It has been working with local authorities to help them meet their statutory duties and has targeted authorities showing poor performance in getting statements completed on time, which has led to a significant improvement in performance.

Vincent Cable: The Minister will be aware of the enormous frustration faced by many parents who are trying to get rapid and satisfactory statementing. What assurances can he give me that the situation will not deteriorate for children statemented into the mainstream sector when schools become more independent and may be less inclined to provide support arrangements for special needs children in the school of their first choice?

Bill Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and know that he takes a detailed interest in the issue. I assure him that all maintained schools, including trust schools, are under a duty after being consulted to admit children whose statements name their school, so the policy is clear and categorical. On top of that, the framework includes early intervention and advice through SEN co-ordinators, which has led to a significant improvement in performance—an increase of some 10 percentage points in the proportion of statements that are dealt with within the statutory time limit of 18 weeks in the five years running up to 2005. That is what the parents of children with special educational needs want to see happen, and we are making sure that it does.

Bob Blizzard: Parents of autistic children are interested in special needs statements, as well as in what provision exists in schools. Will my hon. Friend carry out a national audit of provision for autistic children in our schools, as the situation is very patchy? Will he issue a statement on what LEAs are doing, given that some provide more than others and some provide more in some parts of their area than in others?

Bill Rammell: I believe that looking at best practice and seeing how we can spread that right across the country is the way forward. We do, from time to time, receive calls for radical reappraisals and reviews. That would not be the right way forward. We need to ensure that we get it right on the ground by improving early intervention, building the skills base within our schools to deal with special educational needs, bringing special and mainstream schools closer together and, in particular, improving multi-agency working.

Maria Miller: I hear what the Minister says, but there is a great deal of concern about statementing. The system is not working properly at the moment. Only last week, I met a group of parents in my constituency who expressed their concerns about statementing and the inclusion in mainstream schooling of children with autism and Asperger's syndrome. Schools cannot cope, and the parents did not feel that the action being taken was appropriate. Will the Minister share with the House his thoughts on why Government figures show that the number of children with special educational needs, but no statement, has increased? Does he agree that the time has come for a review of how statementing, and indeed inclusion, work to support this important and vulnerable group of children?

Bill Rammell: This group of vulnerable children is at the forefront of our thinking as we develop policy. Since we introduced our SEN strategy, "Removing Barriers to Achievement", in 2004, there has been a tangible and significant improvement in performance. On the key criterion of the percentage of statements without exceptions that are drafted within the 18-week target, performance has risen from 82 per cent. to 92 per cent. in the five years running up to 2005. That is significant evidence that we are improving performance.

Adult Education

Tom Brake: How many adult education courses have closed at colleges in England in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement.

Phil Hope: We do not collect details of individual course changes centrally. However, our priorities for adult learning are outlined in the Learning and Skills Council's strategy document, "Priorities for Success". They are: support for adults who lack basic skills; support for adults who lack the level 2 platform of skills for employability; ensuring opportunities for developing level 3 skills; and safeguarding adult opportunities for personal and community development. We expect provision to be realigned to meet those priorities, and colleges, as independent bodies, will decide which courses they choose to run.

Tom Brake: The Minister will be aware that the Association of Colleges estimates that some 200,000 courses will be lost by the end of this year. The LSC document to which he refers estimates that by 2008 some 500,000 further education courses will be lost. Does he accept that not only Australian cake decorating courses will be scrapped or have their fees increased, as he suggested, but vital courses for people with severe learning disabilities, as well as people who are seeking to re-skill mid-career?

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on his last point. We expect the amount of funding to support adult participation in learning to remain about the same at some £2.8 billion to £2.9 billion, but we are reprioritising where that money is to go in line with the skills gaps that, for example, Lord Leitch's interim report identified. The number of adult places on courses contributing directly to those priorities might reduce. However, some 274,000 additional level 2 places will be created through our new train to gain programme—a £630 million programme over the next two years to deliver training of the kind that employers need through a demand-led system. I might add that some colleges—for example, City College Brighton and Hove—has expanded participation while increasing its fee income, so it can be done.

Brian Jenkins: When my hon. Friend said that we do not collect numbers, does he mean that we have no idea of how many adults take educational courses at FE colleges? If so, I would be amazed, given the benefits to our nation of adults going back to FE colleges. They not only improve their skills, albeit sometimes at a basic level, thus contributing to their reskilling and re-employment, but make a major contribution to the country. I am surprised that we do not have our eye on the ball.

Phil Hope: The question was about the number of adult education courses, not adult education learners. We collect figures on learners, as I said in an earlier response. The number of adult education courses is a matter for local colleges to determine. My hon. Friend is right that we have a skills gap that needs to be filled—Lord Leitch spelled that out in his interim report; the full report will be published later this year. Indeed, our FE White Paper, which we shall publish in the near future, spells out the importance of skills for the future success of our economy and the important role that FE plays as one of the economic drivers of social mobility and economic success in this country.

Trust Schools

Greg Hands: What powers new trust schools will have beyond those already available to foundation schools.

Jacqui Smith: Trust schools build on the existing foundation school model and will be empowered to make decisions about their buildings and staff needs. The specific opportunity that trust schools have compared with the majority of foundation schools is the ability to benefit from a lasting relationship with external partners, who will provide new opportunities for collaboration and support for leadership, teaching and learning in the school.

Greg Hands: As was said in yesterday's debate, my constituency has one of the country's fastest growing rates of independent school attendance. Will the Minister view it as one of the key indicators of the success of the new trust schools that the rate of parents who opt out of the system in a constituency such as mine is decreasing rather than increasing?

Jacqui Smith: It has never been the Government's objective to get more young people and families to opt out of the state school system. Our objective is to draft in support for state school pupils from wherever we can get it to ensure that we are confident that all children, whatever their background, get the high standard of education that they deserve.

Anne Snelgrove: Several schools in my constituency have shown an interest in and willingness to look at trust and foundation school status. However, some say that we already have such partnerships and are already venturing into the outside world. I believe that those partnerships are not as deep or extensive as those that trust school status would bring to schools. Such status will offer many more opportunities. What is my right hon. Friend's view on that?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The trust school model is aimed precisely at building on the good experience in our system of the past eight years, such as the contribution that external partners make to the specialist school movement and the way in which schools are beginning to collaborate for the benefit of their pupils. However, as my hon. Friend rightly says, those collaborations are too often dependent on the enthusiasm and commitment of dedicated individuals. If they move on, the collaboration is often unable to continue. The ability to embed such collaboration, make it permanent and bring in external support is one of the key benefits of the trust school model.

Mike Hancock: Will the Minister confirm that, when a trust school is established, it will be wholly responsible for all the maintenance commitments on the school site? Will the trust have the right to dispose of the school's assets when the local authority currently holds the freehold?

Hon. Members: Read the Bill.

Jacqui Smith: And read my speech from yesterday, in which I spelled out the provisions for ensuring that, although the assets of a trust school, like those of foundation schools, will be vested in the trust, there are also considerable provisions governing the disposal of assets. They are aimed at protecting publicly funded assets so that, to dispose of them, the trust would need to inform in advance the local authority, which would be in a position to agree a share of the proceeds or alternative use. If a school broke its link with a trust, the assets would revert to the school or, in the case of closure, the local authority.

Child Protection

David Tredinnick: If she will include paid children's entertainers working in private homes in her list of those barred from working with children following conviction for sexual offences against children.

Jacqui Smith: All those who are on the children's barred list, as defined by the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, will be barred from any work that involves frequent teaching, training, supervising, caring for, advising or providing treatment for a child. This will include children's entertainers who are engaged in such activities. Parents will be able to check the barred status of individuals whom they employ to perform those activities.

David Tredinnick: I have already presented a petition to the Home Office from thousands of my constituents about the activities of a professional child entertainer who was working in the Hinckley area. He was, and is, on the sex offenders register, but because he goes to people's homes rather than to schools he does not have to be vetted or have a licence. He has subsequently moved to another part of the county following press reports, and I understand that he is now working there, having changed the name of his company. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the measures that she has just described will cover this situation? Does not she think that it is time that such individuals were properly licensed?

Jacqui Smith: I have just outlined the strengthened provisions that will come into operation following the enactment of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill. Those provisions make it clear that any individual who is involved in frequent teaching, training, supervising, caring for, advising or providing treatment for a child will be able to be monitored under the new scheme. Parents will also be able to check the individual circumstances of the people who are engaged in that work. That represents a strengthening of the present position.

Child Care

Diana Johnson: What range of options the Government expect to be available for child care.

Beverley Hughes: The number of child care places has doubled from 600,000 in 1997 to more than 1.2 million in 2005, supported by investment of more than £17 billion of public funding. This enables parents to choose from a wide range of options, including child minders, nursery care, and out-of-school and holiday provision. We are building on this further by offering high quality child care through extended schools and, in disadvantaged areas, through children's centres.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response. Will the provisions of the Childcare Bill that place a statutory duty on local authorities to ensure sufficient child care places be matched by the necessary funding arrangements, so that families in my constituency will see the materialisation of extra child care places that they can afford?

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. The provision in the Childcare Bill of a duty on local authorities to ensure that there is sufficient child care involves not only a sufficient quantity but a sufficient range and flexibility of child care to meet local parents' needs. That will have to be part of a local authority's obligations. Of course, that does not mean that the local authorities themselves will provide that child care, but they will have sufficient resources to stimulate the market and ensure that it responds with the quantity and range of provision that local parents need.

Philip Hollobone: With 100,000 under-threes now in full-time nurseries, is the Minister concerned at the rising number of very young children—some as young as three months old—who spend all week in these full-time institutions, sometimes for up to 60 hours?

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is being unnecessarily alarmist. There is clear research evidence that high quality early-years experience for three and four-year-old children considerably enhances their development and, in comparison to their peers who do not have that experience, gives them a considerable advantage at the start of their primary school education. Clearly, many parents of younger children will want a range of options. That is why, in addition to stimulating the provision of good quality child care, this Government—unlike the previous Conservative Government—have made it possible for mothers and fathers who are balancing their work and home life to make the decisions that they feel are right about where their very young children should be cared for.

Youth Facilities (Stoke-on-Trent)

Robert Flello: What steps the Government are taking to improve facilities and increase the availability of activities for teenagers in Stoke-on-Trent.

Phil Hope: The current Education and Inspections Bill will require local authorities to secure access for young people to educational and recreational leisure time activities, as proposed in the "Youth Matters" Green Paper and yet another progressive measure that the Liberal Democrats voted against last night. Our next steps document, published this month, also provided extra resources for young people to put spending power directly into their hands through the youth opportunity and youth capital funds. Those funds will be worth more than £593,000 in Stoke-on-Trent over the next two financial years.

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the excellent work already done by many local voluntary groups working with young people in my city. One of the best ways in which my hon. Friend could help with that work would be to visit my constituency. Has he any plans to do so in the near future?

Phil Hope: I am very grateful for the invitation. Given that the programme motion was passed last night, I will probably have a little more time to do so after 18 May. Empowering young people through offering such resources and facilities is at the heart of our policy on youth matters. What is crucial is that young people have a voice, a chance to be heard and a real influence over the decisions of organisations, voluntary and statutory, that affect their lives.

Social Behaviour

Graham Allen: If she will bring forward an option for local authorities to give the same priority to teaching social behaviour in primary schools as is given to numeracy and literacy; and if she will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: Teaching social behaviour helps children learn. That is why we have made the social and emotional aspects of learning programme available to all primary schools. Heads are best placed to decide how that work should be organised in their schools, but they have the flexibility to allocate dedicated time, as part of the recommended whole-curriculum approach.

Graham Allen: Will my right hon. Friend thank her departmental officials and the local education authority team, led by Edwina Grant, in Nottingham, for the innovative work that they are doing on the promotion of social behaviour in the city? Will my right hon. Friend consider the very first amendment to the Education and Inspections Bill, which suggests that local education authorities should have a duty to promote the emotional well-being and pro-social behaviour of every child? I hope that I have got the words right: I should have done, because I tabled the amendment.

Jacqui Smith: I will of course look in great detail at my hon. Friend's amendment. I am also happy to praise the work of my officials and of Nottingham local authority, as well as that of my hon. Friend, who has pushed hard the approach to social behaviour as an opportunity for children, young people and families in Nottingham. I am looking with great attention at the way in which that exciting innovation will work in Nottingham and more widely.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Minister will agree—she said so, to all intents and purposes, in her answer—that good discipline and good social behaviour can contribute to the ability of young people to learn better in schools. What support do schools get from parents? Does she agree that the support of parents is essential, and what can the Government do to encourage parents to support good social behaviour?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why, in the Education and Inspections Bill, we responded to the calls from teacher associations to make clear teachers' unambiguous legal right to discipline. The hon. Gentleman is also correct about parental responsibility, and the Bill will also extend the ability of schools to engage in parenting contracts with parents before the child or young person is excluded from school. Both those factors are important to ensuring that our teachers are able to teach, our children are able to learn, and parents take responsibility for their children's behaviour—all things that the Liberal Democrats voted against yesterday.

Looked-after Children

Stephen Pound: What steps the Government are taking to improve the educational attainment of looked-after children.

Beverley Hughes: The educational attainment of looked-after children is far from acceptable, and we intend to consult shortly on proposals to transform outcomes for that group of children. Building on the new duty on local authorities to promote the educational attainment of looked-after children, we will also propose, in the Education and Inspections Bill, to help those children to get into the right schools in order to meet their needs. We will enable local authorities to direct school admission authorities to admit looked-after children at any time, not just at the beginning of the school year, and even when the school is already full.

Stephen Pound: I am grateful for that answer, and all the more delighted that I voted for the Bill last night.
	My right hon. Friend will be aware that nationally only 1 per cent. of looked-after children go to university. In the London borough of Ealing, owing in no small part to the inspirational leadership of Judith Finlay, the figure is 11 per cent. May I seek to tempt my right hon. Friend to visit the London borough of Ealing when, shortly, we are to open a one-stop shop to provide looked-after children with education, social welfare and benefit advice? Sadly, it will be a few metres outside my constituency—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I seek to tempt the hon. Gentleman to be more concise in his questions? I hope that the same will apply to the Minister's answer.

Beverley Hughes: It would be taking a rather dangerous path to succumb to temptation from my hon. Friend, but he is absolutely right. One of the aspects of educational attainment that we want to improve is further and higher education for looked-after children. As my hon. Friend says, Ealing has made considerable progress in supporting young people from care to higher education through subsistence and the drop-in centre to which he referred, and a package of support for those going to university. Those are exactly the kinds of innovation that we are exploring, and I shall be very pleased if I can go to Ealing and observe them in practice.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Witness Support

Sally Keeble: What steps the Crown Prosecution Service takes to support vulnerable witnesses in court proceedings.

Mike O'Brien: The Crown Prosecution Service can apply to the court to allow vulnerable witnesses to give evidence via a televised link or from behind a screen, or to withhold their personal details. The court may of course refuse the application.

Sally Keeble: Hate crimes have been a problem in my area, especially homophobic attacks. If the courts and the CPS cannot establish certainty, vulnerable witnesses may find themselves in a court without a screen, or in a court that is unsafe because of the layout and the furniture. A defendant may discharge his lawyer and, in effect, use the courtroom to continue to harass the vulnerable witness. Will my hon. and learned Friend examine the position, especially in relation to hate crimes?

Mike O'Brien: I will certainly do so. However, it is open to the CPS, under section 36 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, to prevent the accused from personally cross-examining a witness. The court must be satisfied that the quality of evidence given by a witness under cross-examination is likely to be diminished if the cross-examination is conducted by the accused, that it may be improved if the accused does not cross-examine the witness, and that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice to restrict cross-examination by the accused.
	There are a number of provisions and conditions, but it is possible that the courts have the power to which my hon. Friend refers. As she knows to her cost, however, benches sometimes decide not to use some of the powers that they could use, such as the power to provide screens. It is important for the courts to realise how vulnerable witnesses often feel in such circumstances.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have got off to a very slow start. We shall not give hon. Members a chance if we do not have shorter questions and shorter answers.

Humfrey Malins: In the courts where I sit, one of the big problems occurs in domestic violence cases when, for one reason or another—fear, perhaps—women do not turn up. Does the Solicitor- General recognise that problem? It costs a good deal of money. Can more be done to strengthen the position of such women?

Mike O'Brien: There has been a considerable problem with domestic violence cases. There have been pilot schemes in Caerphilly and Croydon to establish whether non-lawyer advocates can work with domestic violence victims and witnesses, take them through the criminal justice system, and ensure that they are relieved of at least some of the stress of giving evidence—although the experience is always likely to be stressful.

Crown Prosecution Service

Keith Vaz: What steps he is taking to improve liaison between victims of crime and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mike O'Brien: A new code of practice for victims and witnesses is due to come into force on 3 April that sets out responsibilities towards victims, witnesses and bereaved relatives. Breaches of the obligations can, if unresolved through a complaints procedure, be referred to the parliamentary ombudsman. The Attorney-General has also recently published the prosecutors pledge to victims of crime.

Keith Vaz: My hon. and learned Friend will know that the first full performance review of the CPS was published on Tuesday. It showed that performance was less than good in more than half of CPS areas and that in most there was a failure to communicate with victims of crime—to tell them that charges had either been dropped or reduced. Those are damning criticisms of the CPS. What steps is my hon. and learned Friend going to take to ensure that the Director of Public Prosecutions is aware of these failings—and what is the CPS going to do to get its act together?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman did well to pause at that moment.

Mike O'Brien: The overall assessment of the recent analysis was that three CPS areas were "excellent", 16 were "good", 19 were "fair" and four were "poor". So some 45 per cent. of CPS areas are either "excellent" or "good", and 90 per cent. are for the most part complying with relevant standards satisfactorily. The inspectorate also said:
	"we are confident that the performance generally across the CPS is improving."
	A lot of good work has already been undertaken in the past year through the charging programme, the "No Witness, No Justice" programme and the effective trial management programme. We predict that by December 2007, due to the steps that we are taking, 12,000 more trials will go ahead per year than do so currently.

Murder

David Davies: What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on changes to the way murder is prosecuted.

Mike O'Brien: The Law Commission is dealing with the first stage of a review of the law on murder, and the Law Officers have had discussions with the Home Secretary and other Ministers. The Law Commission, which is of course an independent body, has issued a consultation paper containing provisional proposals. The Government will await the final proposals before taking a view on them.

David Davies: Can the Solicitor-General assure us that, whatever the outcome of the review, the most serious forms of murder will continue to carry a mandatory life sentence? Can he further assure us that from now on, a mandatory life sentence will mean that the person in question spends the rest of their life behind bars, rather than spending several years watching Sky television before being set free to continue a campaign of violence against the innocent populace?

Mike O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman had listened when the review was announced, he would know that the Home Secretary made it clear that the mandatory life sentence for murder will indeed remain. The murder principle set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 will also remain. The Government passed that Act to ensure effective sentencing principles in dealing with murder cases, which, I have to say—given the way in which the hon. Gentleman asked his question—his party singularly failed to do when in power.

Simon Hughes: Does the Solicitor-General agree that it is far better to respond to the Law Commission's proposals in the rational and measured way that it made them, than in the histrionic manner that we just heard from the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies)? The Law Commission has made it clear that the law is in a mess, that it is not saying and doing what the public think it is, and that it needs reform. The best way to get reform is to have a rational debate and to build consensus. Will the Solicitor-General commend the Law Commission's very sensible proposals?

Mike O'Brien: The proposals are out for consultation and will remain so for only a few more weeks, so I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies)—who asked the "histrionic" question, as the hon. Gentleman put it—respond to that consultation and make their respective views known. The proposals, provisional as they are, are very important and will doubtless change the law on murder in due course, although we have yet to take a final view. It is important that Members take the opportunity to make their views known to that independent body.

Dominic Grieve: The Solicitor-General will be aware that the Law Commission proposes that, although first-degree murder would continue to carry the mandatory life sentence, second-degree murder—which could involve killing a person when the intent is to commit grievous bodily harm of the most serious kind—would not. Does the Minister think that it might be useful for the review also to look at how fixed-term sentences are passed, and at the disparity between what the judge says in court and the sentence that is in fact served? The public need greater reassurance that fixed-term sentences mean what they say and approximate to the period that a person might serve in prison. Would it not be possible to provide that reassurance by making it clear that the mandatory sentence was not always necessary? People latch on to the mandatory sentence because they do not have confidence in the current sentencing system.

Mike O'Brien: I suspect that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) and other Back-Bench Opposition Members may take that inquiry as something of a rebuke for the way he asked his original question. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is right that it is important that we consider these matters with a degree of calm and ensure that the public have confidence in the sentences that are passed. The Law Commission is looking at how such matters should be dealt with. We must await the outcome of that, but the Government are discussing how to ensure that people understand better precisely what a sentence passed by a judge will mean in practice for each defendant. There are ways to achieve that, but we must approach the matter through a process of consultation and not by making announcements here. However, I take on board the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Identity Theft

Anne McIntosh: Pursuant to his oral answer of 9 February 2006, Official Report, column 1003, on identity theft, what response he has received from Home Office Ministers.

Mike O'Brien: I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who deals with policy on identity fraud, has written to the hon. Lady on this matter. I have seen the letter, and I have also further discussed with him my concerns about the case that she raises. He has agreed to meet her and her constituent to discuss the matter.

Anne McIntosh: It is a very simple question: under what circumstances will identity fraud be investigated and prosecuted? Does the Solicitor-General agree that data protection should not be used an excuse for not conducting an investigation?

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Lady needs to raise this issue with my hon. Friend at the Home Office and, in due course, with Royal Mail. I share some of her concerns about how Royal Mail has decided to deal with this matter. The appropriate method for reporting abuse is via the Royal Mail security team, which then liaises with the police investigation, but it is also important that we ensure that a person whose mail is diverted is able to get to the bottom of what on earth went on. That is why I have had a conversation with my hon. Friend at the Home Office, and I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to take those discussions further.

Business of the House

Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for the coming weeks?

Geoff Hoon: I have previously announced the business for next week, but I hope that it will be helpful if I give the House a little more detail. The forthcoming business is as follows:
	Monday 20 March—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the costs of peacekeeping in Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by a debate on deficits in the NHS. Full details will be given in the Official Report.
	Followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill. At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Tuesday 21 March—A motion to approve a money resolution on the Armed Forces Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill, followed by a debate on "a points-based system for managed migration" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	The House may also be asked to consider any Lord messages which may by then be received.
	Wednesday 22 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 23 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 24 March—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 27 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Tuesday 28 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
	Wednesday 29 March—Consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 30 March—Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment.
	Friday 31 March—The House will not be sitting.
	[The following is the information: The Estimate is to be considered in so far as it relates to the costs of peacekeeping in Iraq and Afghanistan (Resolution of 16th March). Relevant documents: Fourth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2005–06 (HC 980) on costs of peacekeeping in Iraq and Afghanistan; Spring Supplementary Estimate 2005–06; and Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2004–05 (HC 464).
	Uncorrected oral and written evidence taken by the Health Committee on 1 and 6 December 2005 (HC 736–i, –ii and –iii) on Public Expenditure Health and Social Services 2005.]
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the 30 March will be:
	Thursday 30 March—A debate on the report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee on the courts and small claims.
	The House may wish to be reminded that we will rise for the Easter recess at the end of business on Thursday 30 March and return on Tuesday 18 April.

Theresa May: I suspect that not all Members will be aware that this morning it has been announced in a written statement that due to chaos in the Rural Payments Agency, which is responsible for the single farm payment, the chief executive has been replaced—I assume that means sacked. May we have an oral statement on Monday from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs so that Members can question Ministers and raise farmers' concerns about the failure of that agency?
	I appreciate that there will be a statement today by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the Government's response to the parliamentary ombudsman's report, "Trusting in the pensions promise". However, the Government's initial attempt to dismiss the ombudsman's findings called into question her role and her ability to act on the referrals that she receives from hon. Members. Constituents assume that the ombudsman is the last line of defence against possible maladministration by the Government. The ombudsman serves this House. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate on the role and powers of the parliamentary ombudsman?
	The latest annual study by the Association of Directors of Social Services shows that council social services departments have a funding shortfall of £1.76 billion, some of which is due to deficits in the health service. Crucially, that means that councils are cutting the provision of services to elderly and other vulnerable people. May we have a statement on joint funding and working between health and social services and a debate on the provision of social care?
	In business questions recently, I, and other hon. Members, asked for a debate on the withdrawal of the Post Office card account and the possible resultant closure of 10,000 post offices. The right hon. Gentleman dismissed those concerns. Last week, in reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) he said:
	"No one is suggesting that people should be forced to use the banks. Indeed, I have been at great pains to emphasise that there is a range of accounts available at the post office".—[Official Report, 9 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 955.]
	I have checked the Post Office website. There are indeed accounts that can be used at the post office. They are accounts that are held at Abbey, Alliance & Leicester, Bank of Ireland, Bank of Scotland, Barclays, Clydesdale Bank, the Co-operative Bank, First Trust Bank—the list goes on. Unless I am mistaken—and the names do rather give it away—those are all banks, although there is one building society, the Nationwide. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what accounts the Post Office provides as an alternative to the card account? I ask him again for a debate on the future of the Post Office.
	Finally, may we have a debate on standards of financial management? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was concerned that the treasurer of the Labour party did not know that the party had received a loan of £1.5 million. I wonder what account the money went into if the treasurer did not know about it. Should we assume that the money went into a hedge fund? The Labour party treasurer is married to the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) who speaks for the Government on the funding of political parties. Indeed, in a debate in Westminster Hall on 8 November last year, the right hon. and learned Lady said:
	"We do not have any millionaires in Peckham, and we probably do not have any people who would donate £5,000".
	She went on to say in reference to local party members:
	"If they think that donations are entirely the remit of millionaires, they will feel that they themselves do not matter".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 20WH.]
	Could she not have helped her husband out on this matter, or is this yet another Labour household where financial matters are not discussed over the breakfast table?

Julian Lewis: Try not to smile, Geoff.

Geoff Hoon: I will certainly give it a try.
	The House has clearly been concerned for some time about rural payments. Business questions have been asked routinely about the difficulties faced by farmers who have not received appropriate payments, so I would have thought that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) would congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on dealing with the matter. Where there are problems, it is obviously right that the Government and accountable Ministers should take the action necessary to bring about an improvement in the situation. I can assure the House that that is precisely what my right hon. Friend has done through her decision.
	On pensions, I can assure the House that no one is dismissing the report of the parliamentary ombudsman. Indeed, after business questions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make a statement to the House about the report, as is appropriate. As the House is aware, it has a proper process for dealing with reports from the parliamentary ombudsman and, as I understand it, that proper process will be pursued by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, which again is as it should be.
	The responsible Minister at the Department of Health is looking at any shortfalls that may arise in social services. I have made clear to the House before the importance of health service bodies being able to deal with deficits and having appropriate procedures and accountancy standards to deal with them. I am sure that all Members want the huge amount of extra money that the Government have put into the health service to be spent wisely and effectively on continuing to improve health care both for the elderly, in conjunction with social services across the country, and for all other users of the service.
	I look forward to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead telling the House about the evidence on which she relied when suggesting, in rather emotive terms, that 10,000 rural post offices will be closing. I have seen that in headlines and in newspapers and although there is a tendency for the Opposition to believe all they read in the Daily Mail, it is not necessarily the best source for research or advice. Nevertheless, I take seriously the future of the Post Office—the Government take it extremely seriously. I have previously set out the position on Post Office accounts and accounts that can be used at the post office. It is important that pensioners and others get the best return on their savings and their money. I have generally assumed that the Conservative party supports financial improvement for pensioners, so I am a little surprised that week in, week out Opposition Members continue to suggest that pensioners should not get the best return on their savings and their accounts. That is the implication of the right hon. Lady's suggestion.
	The Government have introduced clear standards of transparency on financial management in respect of donations—[Laughter.] Quite why that should cause the Opposition so much entertainment is difficult to understand. Without those arrangements we would not be aware of the range of contributions that have been made to the Conservative party over the years. The Government have no difficulty about discussing such matters and I am surprised that Opposition Members are not a little more embarrassed about the history of the arrangements in their party.

David Heath: The evidence on which the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) might have been relying was the words of Adam Crozier, the chief executive of the Post Office, who might be expected to know about the Post Office system.
	The Leader of the House cannot just sweep aside an issue that the treasurer of the Labour party calls impropriety. Is the right hon. Gentleman not at all ashamed that there should be even a suspicion that in this country people can buy a place in Parliament? There is nothing wrong with loans to political parties, if they are transparent and if they do not buy preference, but should not we have a debate on removing patronage altogether from Parliament and stopping millionaires from payrolling parties the money they need to go about their business?
	I note that the Leader of the House has arranged for a debate on the costs of the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which I welcome. But is there not a need for a wider foreign affairs debate, dealing with not only what is now acknowledged by the Secretary of State for Defence as a prospective civil war in Iraq and the continuing situation in Afghanistan, but also the crisis in Palestine? We need an opportunity to debate the British position on these matters more fully than the time available for the statement would permit.
	Lastly, I wonder whether we ought to have a debate on the teaching of English in universities, because I am very concerned that the Home Secretary, who went to Cambridge—which some say is a reputable university—appears to think that a scheme that is compulsory for everybody who drives a car and for everybody who wants to go on holiday is somehow voluntary. For nine out of 10 people in this country it will be compulsory, so I do think that perhaps we need a debate on English comprehension.

Geoff Hoon: Well, as someone who has suffered at the same institution as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I am confident that we both understand English and that we can both explain it with the same ability. I recognise that in the recent past the hon. Gentleman has had some difficulty understanding my replies. I will do my best to make them clearer to him, not least because he has at least accepted the House's advice in relation to his political ambitions—I see that he is planning to become the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats. We all congratulate him on that, and if I were to get a vote, I would be voting for him.
	On the question of political patronage, I assure the hon. Gentleman that in any event, rightly, it is against the law for honours to be sold—a law that I think was passed by the House as a result of the activities of a previous Liberal Democrat Prime Minister. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I should correct that—Liberal Prime Minister.

David Heath: He published the prices.

Geoff Hoon: I have no knowledge of that. But in any event it is something that is clearly thoroughly disapproved of, and something that I assure the House does not happen.
	On the question of a wider foreign affairs debate, we have regularly scheduled such debates. I am sure that it will be possible to have such a debate in the future. This week we had Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, where I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went out of his way to provide as much detail as he could at the time in relation to recent and very troubling events in Palestine. That is a subject that I am sure the House will want to return to, and certainly we will look at the possibility of arranging such a debate.

Gavin Strang: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members are justly proud of the fact that it was a Labour Government, after returning to power in 1997, who introduced and enacted the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which, yes, brought a real transparency to the funding of political parties? [Interruption.] Hon. Members should read the thing. Yes, it brought transparency covering donations; but I hope that some Opposition Members will read it, and agree that we need and want a debate to discuss how quickly we can introduce amending legislation to cover loans as well as donations. It is as simple at that.

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend has made his point extremely well, and certainly no one on this side of the House would be in any way concerned about such a debate.

Andrew MacKay: After my criticism last week, I thank the Leader of the House for coming here today in a much better mood, which is much appreciated. Let me try and ensure that he stays in that mood, and suggest to him that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) does have a serious potential conflict of interest, as her husband is treasurer of the Labour party. Would it be wise for her to come to the House next week and tell us that this particular part of her many responsibilities has been divested to another Minister within the Department?

Geoff Hoon: I can tell the House that, yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs asked to be relieved of her responsibility for electoral administration. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has accepted that request and has strengthened my right hon. and learned Friend's portfolio by adding legal aid and family justice. She will now deal with the central planks of the Department's portfolio on justice, including the courts and legal aid.

David Winnick: May I also refer to political donations, which, I believe, I was the only Member to raise at Business questions last week? Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), I recognise the changes that have come about in terms of transparency since we were elected, but I wish to restate the need for a statement in view of the controversy. Given all the circumstances, perhaps it would be wise for all the latest nominations for peerages from the three parties to be withdrawn. At long last, after all these years—this issue goes back a long time indeed—is it not essential that we separate the connection between donating large sums of money and getting a peerage? We need to clean up the whole act.

Geoff Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that those matters are entirely separate. Indeed, as I indicated in agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), the Government have done more to introduce transparency in such matters than any previous Government in history. That is why we are proud of that record and why we will continue to be willing to debate it on any and every occasion.

Grant Shapps: The Leader of the House will be aware that students are rightly exempt from paying council tax, but the Government grant formula is supposed to ensure that local residents in large university towns, such as Hatfield, do not lose out by having to make up the shortfall. However, it has come to light that, because of an error in the way that the Office of the Deputy Prime calculates the number of students in an area, 6.5 million people are spending £82.5 million too much on their council tax. If I send him the proof of that, may we have a debate to discuss it?

Geoff Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman sends me the details, I will certainly refer them to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

Fraser Kemp: Will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 998, which is in my name and those of 20 other hon. Members from both sides of the House and congratulates Nissan Motor Manufacturing on its decision to build a new model in Europe's most efficient car plant—a record that it has held for the past seven years—especially in the light of the fact that the Nissan's chief executive officer will be visiting my constituency to see the new model come off the production line tomorrow?
	[That this House congratulates the Nissan car company on its decision to build the new Note model and the compact Qashqai car at its Washington plant; further congratulates the workforce on being the most productive car plant in Europe for seven years consecutively and for winning the right to build the new model in the face of stiff internal competition; notes that the Nissan car plant in Washington is the biggest car plant in the United Kingdom with a production capacity of more than 300,000 vehicles a year employing 4,100 people and has just announced a further 200 jobs will be created; further notes that sales of Almera and Primera cars in Russia manufactured in Washington were up 61 per cent. in September, the eighth consecutive month of growth in demand; and further congratulates Nissan for selling more than 1.8 million cars in the first six months of its financial year, up 15 per cent. on last year.]
	Does the Leader of the House not feel that that is a great tribute to the work force and British manufacturing in general? Does he not agree that Government procurement agencies should consider that car as an ideal model for Ministers and others?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has made his point, and I am pleased to agree with him, not least because, given the history of difficulty with the British car industry, companies such as Nissan are responsible for exporting about 75 per cent. of their production. Not only are they providing important sources of high-value employment in areas such as the north-east, but they contribute significantly to the success of the British economy abroad.

Desmond Swayne: The Leader of the House expressed incredulity that Opposition Members keep raising, week after week, the Post Office card account? Can he not just take us at our word? We want a debate. There are 9,000 account holders in the New Forest. They are anxious and angry about the proposals to abolish their accounts. They expect both my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and me to raise that issue, ask Ministers questions and demand to scrutinise the Government's proposals.

Geoff Hoon: I am not at all suggesting that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members should not raise those issues as and when appropriate, and they have done so regularly. Perhaps my only slight scepticism stems from the fact that hon. Members do not listen to the replies. Given our concern about education, I realise that there are still some Opposition Members who perhaps have not benefited from the excellent state education that the Government provide and continue to improve. However, in those circumstances, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government take very seriously the Post Office card account and the future of rural post office services, but we believe that, equally, pensioners who use the Post Office card account have an interest in moving to accounts that, for example, pay them rather better interest than they earn currently.

Anne Moffat: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on foreign workers? We should be welcoming foreign workers into the country, but we have a problem in my constituency with Monaghan's mushroom farm, which encourages indigenous workers to be squeezed out by paying foreign workers less and giving them reduced conditions of employment. That is a serious matter: it causes racial rumblings in communities that want no part in that type of behaviour.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which is important in her constituency, as in other constituencies, and she is right to highlight it. Of course, there will be an opportunity for her to contribute to the debate next Tuesday, when there will be a chance to discuss the Government's new proposals on a points-based system for managed migration. I am sure that, if she catches the Deputy Speaker's eye on that occasion, she will be able to make her points again.

William McCrea: Will the Leader of the House find time to debate the lack of adequate education provision for young people with severe physical disabilities and profound learning difficulties who are in the 19-plus age group in Northern Ireland?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry to learn that the hon. Gentleman believes that that is the position in Northern Ireland. I am sure that that matter can be looked into if he lets me have appropriate details or provides them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Kali Mountford: May I tell my right hon. Friend that thousands of my constituents suffered from a loss of gas supply in sub-zero temperatures last week? Although the community and those involved with the emergency plan pulled together marvellously—many people are to be congratulated on ensuring that those who were vulnerable were warm and fed—many important matters now arise, not least with the compensation system, which is over-complex. Will he find time for the House to consider how the regulator is responding to requests from my constituents, who have to wait until the gas supplier receives the money from the gas network before it can be passed on to my constituents?

Geoff Hoon: I am pleased to hear from my hon. Friend that the response by those responsible was effective and minimised the time that people spent without an adequate gas supply. I equally recognise that it is important that we reduce unnecessary bureaucracy in dealing with any compensation payments, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be considering that issue.

John Bercow: May we please have a debate in Government time on prison education? Given that children in young offenders institutions on average receive only eight hours education a week and that the operation of the churn means that thousands of young people are constantly shunted from one institution to another before they have had the chance to finish their education or training and to acquire the qualifications that they seek, would not a debate allow right hon. and hon. Members to explore what is being done by both the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills to tackle that phenomenon and to give those young people the chance to reform and constructively to contribute to our society?

Geoff Hoon: I heard the hon. Gentleman raise that important issue on a previous occasion, and he is right to suggest that it is a matter of great concern that those young people, who perhaps need education more than most, should have that opportunity. It is something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department equally takes very seriously, and it is something that the Government have at the forefront of their mind.

Jim Sheridan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for politicians and political parties to play fast and loose with the constitution and integrity of the House? He may be aware that the Scottish National party voted on the Education and Inspections Bill last night, despite claiming publicly and in early-day motions that SNP Members do not vote on matters not relevant to Scotland. May I ask my right hon. Friend to use his good offices to reassure the House that that kind of hokey-cokey politics will not be tolerated?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. We have got used to the inconsistency of the Scottish National party over the years. He has simply highlighted another aspect of that.

Philip Davies: The Leader of the House may not be aware of the case of Stephen Ayre, a convicted murderer who was let out of prison early and who then abducted and raped a young boy in my constituency. Given that 7,000 crimes have been committed by people out of prison on tags and that 1,600 crimes have been committed since 1997 by people out on parole, will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on sentencing? Many people in my constituency are angry that people sent to prison are let out early to commit crimes such as the one that I have described. People want prisoners to serve their sentences in full. May we have debate on this issue?

Geoff Hoon: This issue is regularly discussed when Home Office affairs are dealt with on the Floor of the House. As someone responsible for managing the Government's legislative programme, I know that we have the opportunity in the House very frequently to discuss Home Office matters as part of the significant programme of legislation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has brought forward in this Session and, I anticipate, will do in future Sessions.
	It is easy to talk about the problems that arise when prisoners are released early. Leaving aside the individual case that clearly we all must look at very seriously, I would be more understanding of the hon. Gentleman's concern if he were able to place his criticism in the context of what he believes should be an appropriate solution to the problem. Simply highlighting the particular case does not help to take the debate forward.

Gordon Prentice: The House will know that there has been just a single prosecution under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, and that was way back in 1933. Given the swirl of allegations about cash for honours, is there not—I say this seriously—a compelling reason for an early statement by a Minister from the Cabinet Office or perhaps even the Prime Minister himself in the House next week?

Geoff Hoon: I do not believe that that is the case at all. I do not believe that there has been any impropriety; there has been no evidence of that. I accept that there is a swirl of allegations, but I do not believe that any of those allegations have foundation.

Maria Miller: My constituent, Miss Izzo, has been waiting eight months for an answer to a complaint that she made about the medical treatment that her mother received shortly before her tragic death. Currently, more than 1,500 complaints are waiting more than six months for the Healthcare Commission to resolve, and it is now more than a year since the health care ombudsman issued her own damning report into the system. Does the Leader of House not agree that there is an urgent need for a debate on the national health service complaints system and that it is in crisis? Such a debate is long overdue.

Geoff Hoon: Obviously, I do not have the details of the particular case, but if the hon. Lady would like to let me have them, I will certainly draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Linda Gilroy: In a written statement, the Minister with responsibility for disabled people advised Parliament of her intention to engage consultants to conduct a strategic review of the future business options for Remploy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that provides a very good opportunity for people who work in Remploy, the board of Remploy and those of us who represent constituencies with Remploy bases in them to make the case for the recommendation in the National Audit Office report, "Gaining and retaining a job: the Department for Work and Pensions' support for disabled people", that said that we should find ways of re-engineering the profile of Remploy? Does he know of any forthcoming debates that there may be on the support that the Department for Work and Pensions gives to help the 2.6 million disabled people who are of working age to look for work when we might talk about the strengths of Remploy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Lady has got her point across to the Leader of the House.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have had the opportunity in the past of visiting more than one Remploy factory, and I know what a tremendous contribution it makes in improving employment opportunities for disabled people. As I am sure she is aware, our recently published Green Paper on welfare reform set out the Government's intention to continue to do more to provide employment opportunities for disabled people. We believe that Remploy has a key role to play in helping us to achieve that goal.

Alex Salmond: When I asked for a debate on the cash-for-honours scandal last week, the Leader of the House told me that his political antennae had not detected any groundswell of concern on the issue. How are his political antennae this week now that the scandal is threatening to engulf the entire Labour party? If political honours are not for sale in this country—and this Prime Minister has appointed 290 peers when Lloyd George managed 26—why is it that 80p of every pound of individual donations to the Labour party has come from people who were either knighted or ennobled by this Prime Minister?

Geoff Hoon: I have made it clear that political honours are not for sale in this country. I stand by the remarks that I made last week. It may well be the case that there is a swirl—to use the word of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)—of speculation and debate about this matter, but the Government have set out in legislation a process that provides transparency in these arrangements. That is something that no previous Government have done and is something of which Labour Members can rightly be proud.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the invidious position of Port of Liverpool police with regard to their employment rights. I have tried to determine which Department is responsible for the employment rights of Port of Liverpool police and I have failed dismally. Some Department must be responsible, so would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to let me know which?

Geoff Hoon: When I find out, I will.

Daniel Kawczynski: I would like to inform the Leader of the House that more than 50 Members have now joined my all-party parliamentary group for dairy farmers. That shows the extent of passion and feeling that many MPs on both sides of the House feel about the state of the dairy industry. Will he provide time for us to discuss the plight that dairy farmers are facing, so that we can compel supermarkets to treat them in a more appropriate manner?

Geoff Hoon: I know that the issue has been raised on more than one occasion with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He has made clear the Government's concern to ensure that there should be fair treatment not only of dairy farmers but of farmers in general. That is why the Government are taking such urgent action to improve the present arrangements for rural payments.

Jim Devine: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the sad death this week of Jimmy Johnstone, the former Celtic and Scotland winger. Height wise he was, as we say in Scotland, five foot nothing but, in terms of skill, ability, personality and humility, he was a giant of a man. He played many memorable games for both Celtic and Scotland, and was—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer to this matter, but we need a question relating to next week's business.

Jim Devine: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend support early-day motion 1807?
	[That this House notes with sadness the passing of Celtic and Scotland legend Jimmy Johnstone and offers his family its condolences at this difficult time.]
	It is in my name and the names of 113 other hon. Members on both sides of the House, and extends our condolences to his wife Agnes and to his friends and family.

Geoff Hoon: I would like to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to a great footballer. This country has lost a number of very talented footballers in recent times, and I know how strongly those north of the border feel that Jimmy Johnstone was never recognised as he should have been south of the border in his playing career. I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to him.

Michael Penning: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on the role of the Health and Safety Executive? It is responsible for the safety of industrial work in this country as well as for investigating disasters such as the one that took place at Buncefield. However, it could end up prosecuting itself, because it is the prosecuting authority as well. Its inquiries are carried out behind closed doors, so could we have a debate on the Floor of the House into its future role in dealing with disasters such as that at Buncefield?

Geoff Hoon: I believe that health and safety standards in this country are among the very highest in the world and that that in no small part is the result of the work of the Health and Safety Executive. If the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns about the way in which it operates, I will have them investigated if he lets me have them.

David Taylor: I congratulate the Leader of the House on referring to the considerable successes that we have had since 1997 in the national health service and in many aspects of its work. However, did he see earlier this week the announcement by Laing, the midwife of many private finance initiative projects, that the book value of its contracts had quintupled and that its profits had increased by 43 per cent? That stands in stark contrast with the acute problems that one or two acute hospital trusts face. May we have a debate on PFI, which is increasingly seen as prohibitive in cost, flawed in concept and intolerable in consequences for taxpayers, patients and clinical staff in the UK?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept that argument. A huge amount of extra money has been put into the national health service by the Government but, at the same time, extra money has come from the private sector which would not otherwise have been available, providing, for example, significant additional capital projects, including the construction of new hospitals, wards and facilities that contribute directly to the NHS and to in-patient care. I urge my hon. Friend to look carefully at those schemes, which are an excellent illustration of the way in which the public and private sectors can work together for mutual benefit.

Mark Lancaster: May we have a debate on domestic violence victims who do not have any recourse to public funds? I pay tribute to good work of the MK Lighthouse project, but overseas nationals who are married to British and EU nationals face a stark choice if they are victims of domestic violence. Either they leave the home and face destitution, because they do not have recourse to public funds, or they stay in the violent home. The Government have acknowledged that problem by giving funds to Women's Aid, but those funds have now run out.

Geoff Hoon: That is an important and difficult issue. The Government have recognised the dilemma particularly of women in that position, and it is something that we will keep under review.

Tom Harris: The Leader of the Opposition told the House yesterday
	"We believe in parliamentary scrutiny".—[Official Report, 15 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1452.]
	This morning, however, when I attended the Ninth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation to consider the Civil Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2005, not a single member of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties bothered to turn up. We were bereft in particular of the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). May we have an early debate, but not too early in the morning, on the subject of alarm clocks and the Government distribution thereof to Opposition members?

Geoff Hoon: I have discovered in the course of my responsibilities that I am expected to deal with a range of different institutions and answer questions on their behalf. I have not previously been asked to be responsible for the organisation of the Opposition Whips Office, but I am always willing to give it the benefit of my advice.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on male health? I have tabled early-day motion 1639, which has already been signed by more than 55 Members.
	[That this House notes the statistics contained in the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry showing that in the last 10 years the number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer has increased by almost 50 per cent.; recognises that hospitals and clinics dealing with this type of cancer are doing so against a traditional reluctance among males to use their services; and calls upon all hon. Members to offer assistance in promotional activities that demonstrate the utter folly of such attitudes regarding male health.]
	A debate would help us to try to dispel men's traditional reluctance to go to hospital, and ensure that there is a reduction in the number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Geoff Hoon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising that important issue—the more publicity that is given to the question, the better—and he is right to do so on the Floor of the House. I join him in urging people to support that campaign.

James McGovern: I apologise for my late attendance in the House—I was at a meeting with a Tesco representative. Last Saturday, I was delighted to attend an event at the Tesco superstore in my constituency to promote its involvement in Fair Trade fortnight. I was therefore outraged to find out on Monday in the local press that Tesco is shedding more than 400 jobs in my constituency, without any prior consultation with the local council, the local chamber of commerce or me. May we have a debate in the House to discuss employment relations to ensure that employers such as Tesco do not behave in such a cavalier fashion?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has made his point. It is clearly important that major employers, particularly when contemplating significant reductions in their work force, ensure that Members of Parliament and others affected by such matters are given as much warning as possible.

Bob Spink: Will the Secretary of State for Health come to the House and make a statement about the impending redundancies of NHS dentists, which are an unintended consequence of the new dental contract? Strategic health authorities and primary care trusts must be told by the Department of Health to stop the loss of NHS dental care, including from the excellent practice of Foreman in my constituency and other practices in south Essex.

Geoff Hoon: I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend writes to the hon. Gentleman, but I doubt that any dentist will be out of work for long, given the significant demand for their services.

Julian Lewis: On 16 February, the Leader of the House dismissed my request for a debate on honesty in sentencing, and today he was equally dismissive of the same request from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), saying that he had focused on one case. John Monckton was murdered in his own home by someone who was released five years early from his sentence, and yesterday we read about Robert Symons, who was murdered in his own home by someone who was released nearly three years early from his third sentence for burglary. Is it not the case that people are being killed because there is a policy to get offenders out of prison when they ought to remain there? Is not the solution to supply enough capacity in prisons to keep them there?

Geoff Hoon: I am not in any way dismissing perfectly proper concern and anger about that case, which no one would take lightly. I am not suggesting for a moment that anyone has done so. However, this is not a new issue or a recent problem for the penal system. The Government have adjusted the rules significantly to provide more clarity about the length of sentence that is actually served. Leaving that aside, the hon. Gentleman must set out to the House more clearly his proposed solution. If he is suggesting that everyone should serve precisely the term set out by the judge at the time of sentencing, he should say so.

Hon. Members: Yes!

Andrew Murrison: Would the Leader of the House find time for a debate on why the council tax misery of people living outside metropolitan areas has been compounded by unrestrained hikes in town council precepts, such as a remarkable 48 per cent. by Trowbridge town council in my constituency?

Geoff Hoon: The calculation of council tax is a matter primarily for local decision making, which, in Trowbridge, is the responsibility of the town council. I expect that it is 48 per cent. of a fairly modest figure, given town councils' responsibilities, but nevertheless all councils should apply modest increases, because they affect those who have to pay them.

Brooks Newmark: Does the Minister share the concern of the Royal Society of Chemistry and myself about the proposed closure of the chemistry department at Sussex university? There is something deeply wrong with funding mechanisms if they result in the closure of a five-star-rated chemistry department. Developing countries such as India and China produce 3 million scientists a year, including more than 100,000 chemists, but we are starving centres of excellence of funding. Will the Minister consider allowing a debate on strategic science provision in English universities?

Geoff Hoon: It may be a five-star institution, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the number of chemistry students at Sussex has declined for a considerable number of years. It is not inappropriate for universities to decide which courses to offer and to reorganise their provision accordingly. I would not want him to leave the House with the impression that there is a shortfall in the number of people studying chemistry, as chemistry course applications and acceptances through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service rose by more than 12 per cent. last year, compared with a national average increase of 7 per cent. More chemistry students are therefore being educated at our universities, which we should all welcome.

Nigel Dodds: May we have an early debate in Government time on the work of the Assets Recovery Agency, which is one of the main weapons in the fight against crime and criminals, particularly in Northern Ireland, where paramilitary organisations are steeped in crime? Such a debate could focus on the issue of powers for the agency so that it can do more to fight people who evade tax, thus providing it with a main weapon against paramilitary organisations in particular.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has raised the work of that agency before, and I have joined him in congratulating it on its efforts. It is important that it should continue to succeed in removing criminality from society in Northern Ireland.

Charles Walker: Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate into the future funding of Hertfordshire mental health services? In the next financial year, the service faces a £5.5 million cut, which will put many of the most vulnerable in my constituency and across Hertfordshire at risk. I know that money is tight, but those cuts will hit the most vulnerable in the county.

Geoff Hoon: What is important is that the Government continue, as they have done, to provide extra funding and resources for the important facilities that the hon. Gentleman rightly recognises are being made available. The Government continue to provide more money for mental health services and other aspects of the health service than any Government in history. Clearly, that money is not unlimited; it has to come from taxpayers' pockets. However, the Government are proud of their record in that area and of the health service in general.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have an important statement to come. May I ask for brevity on the part of hon. Members who are still seeking to catch my eye?

Anne McIntosh: In lending my support to a debate on single farm payments, I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that it takes place before the Easter recess. Will he visit auction marts such as that in Thirsk in the Vale of York to see the distortion caused by Scottish farmers being paid the single farm payments in full and North Yorkshire farmers not being paid a penny?

Geoff Hoon: The urgency with which the Government view the situation was made clear by the decision recently taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That matter is important for farmers up and down the country. There are farmers in my constituency who will be concerned about those payments. The Government take the matter seriously, as they should.

Peter Bone: Last Saturday, Mrs. Cutting came to my weekly surgery. She has been admitted four times to hospital with a heart condition. She saw a consultant in September 2005. Her ECG appointment was made for the 8 November—but it was 8 November 2006. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and explain the situation with waiting times?

Geoff Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman lets me have the details of that case, I will ensure that they go to my right hon. Friend and she will write to him directly.

James Brokenshire: Will the Leader of the House find Government time to debate the recent changes to the home oxygen service? One of my constituents contacted me about the problems that he was having in obtaining cylinders for his terminally ill wife. He said:
	"You would not have treated an animal the way that my wife and others are being treated."
	Last week, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) said that she had not blamed anyone for the shambles. When can we have a debate to find out who is responsible for the shambles and what lessons can be learned to ensure that the same thing does not happen again?

Geoff Hoon: I am well aware that there have been some difficulties in different parts of the country and that the issue has been raised before on the Floor of the House at Health questions. The Government are addressing the issue and we need to resolve it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is considering the matter with some urgency.

Andrew Turner: I am sure that we all welcome the example set to her ministerial colleagues by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), although we might wonder when she discovered that her husband was treasurer of the Labour party. May we have a debate on the ministerial code and the Register of Members' Interests, and how they treat the interests of spouses and quasi-spouses?

Geoff Hoon: The ministerial code is set out for the House and is available for anyone to see. Obviously, from time to time, changes are made to the code, but, again, they are published. The Register of Members' Interests is a matter for the House. I see no need for a debate on that question at present.

Occupational Pensions

John Hutton: With permission, I should like to make a statement on the ombudsman's report on the security of final salary occupational pensions published yesterday. The parliamentary commissioner's report is a detailed piece of work and, of course, deserves a proper, full and formal response. It is my intention to publish such a response in the next few weeks. However, I would like today to set out the reasons why, after very careful consideration, we have reached the view that we cannot accept any of the findings of maladministration and why we have therefore decided to reject all but one of her recommendations.
	The ombudsman's report concludes that between 1996 and 2002, both this Government and the Conservative Government were guilty of maladministration in three principal areas. I would like to take each of those findings in turn. I make no apology for the detailed response that I am about to give. To offer anything less comprehensive would not properly reflect the importance of the report and the seriousness with which we treat the findings that the ombudsman has made against this Government and the Conservative Government. I should stress, in that context, my Department has co-operated fully with the ombudsman and her office during the preparation of the report. It has provided detailed information and documentation on request and it has commented extensively on the specific findings that the ombudsman had indicated that she intended to make. Those responses are set out in the report, included in a lengthy annexe to it.
	Turning to the individual findings: first, the ombudsman found that official information about the security that members of final salary occupational pension schemes could expect from the minimum funding requirement, introduced in the Pensions Act 1995, was sometimes inaccurate, incomplete, inconsistent and therefore potentially misleading, and that that constituted maladministration. We do not accept that the Department's leaflets were inaccurate, incomplete, inconsistent or misleading. It is true that some were more detailed than others, but that was because they were designed for different audiences. All the leaflets covered by the report carried very specific statements that they were not a full explanation of the law and were for general guidance only. The leaflets themselves make that clear.
	Perhaps I could illustrate those points by taking some of the key documents referred to in the report, in order. In 1996, the then Government published a guide to the 1995 Pensions Act—leaflet PEC3—which described the intention of the various measures in the Act, including the minimum funding requirement, or MFR, and how they were expected to operate. The leaflet also said:
	"This leaflet is a brief summary of the changes. If you need advice about your occupational pension, speak to the trustees or managers of the scheme . . . This leaflet gives general guidance only and should not be treated as a complete and authoritative statement of the law."
	That was very much the pattern.
	In July 1997, the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority—OPRA—guide for pension scheme trustees summarised what the minimum funding requirement was. The guide also said:
	"You"—
	that is, trustees—
	"will need to take advice from professional advisers so that you can use your powers and fulfil your duties properly. Please note that this guide should not be taken as a definitive statement of the law."
	In May 2002, the Department issued leaflet PM3: "Occupational Pensions—your guide". Although the guide did not discuss the risk of schemes winding up underfunded, it did say:
	"this guide . . . looks at some of the questions you may need to think about and it tells you where you can find more information . . . Read any pension information your employer gives you . . . This leaflet is for guidance only. It is not a complete statement of the law."
	The Government do not consider that any of the leaflets or quoted statements relied on by the ombudsman could have formed a proper basis for scheme members, still less trustees who were professionally advised, to assess the security of their individual pension schemes. But, even more importantly, the Government also believe that the report fails to demonstrate that decisions taken by individual scheme members were influenced by the information that the Government did, or did not, make available. In other words, the report simply does not establish that the wording of the leaflets led to the losses suffered by individuals.
	I now turn to the second finding of maladministration. The ombudsman says that the failure by the Department for Work and Pensions to review its existing information leaflets, when informed that scheme members and member trustees did not know the risks to their accrued pension rights, constituted maladministration. The Government do not believe that the information given to the Department by the actuarial profession during this time should have instigated a review of its publications.
	Those recommendations concerned how trustees—not the Government—should communicate with their members about the funding of their schemes. The Department invited views on that issue in the consultation document that it issued in September 2000 on the future of the minimum funding requirement. The response to that consultation led ultimately to proposals, which were then implemented, for the replacement of the minimum funding requirement. I want to say more about that replacement later. But so far as we are aware, no respondents suggested that departmental publications were causing confusion. They were not advising that the content of these leaflets concerning the purpose or intent of the minimum funding requirement was misleading or inaccurate. Ministers cannot fairly be criticised for failing to do something that was simply not proposed.
	Moreover, trustees had access to advice from their own scheme actuary, who would have been well aware of the operation of the minimum funding requirement. In addition each MFR certificate included a statement that meeting the minimum funding requirement did not equate to full buy-out. All of this information was available to scheme members. We do not believe that it would have been reasonable for trustees to have relied on publications issued by the DWP which were brief and general in nature, rather than the professional advice they had access to and were under an obligation to consult. Trustees were required to give all scheme members basic information about their scheme, and many trustees produced fairly detailed information booklets. We have seen no evidence from the report that the ombudsman has considered what information trustees supplied to their scheme members and what, if any, impact this information might have had.
	Thirdly, the ombudsman has said that the decision in 2002 by the Department for Work and Pensions to approve a change to the basis of the MFR was taken with maladministration. The Government believe that we acted wholly responsibly in implementing the recommendation of the actuarial profession, which had received the backing of the independent Government Actuary's Department. The ombudsman has not allowed us to see the full actuarial advice on which some of her comments were based. The Government Actuary advised the ombudsman that, if this advice was not disclosed, it made it impossible for anyone to understand the basis on which she reached her conclusion that the Government were guilty of maladministration. As a result, we have not been able to see or challenge how she arrived at some of her conclusions on the 2002 change.
	The change in 2002 was intended to bring the MFR back to its original strength. Adjustments to the MFR were always on the principle of maintaining its 1997 level. This was the principle on which the actuarial profession kept the basis of the MFR under review and made recommendations to the Department. It was also the basis on which the Government Actuary's Department advised my Department. The report published yesterday contains a letter from the Government Actuary, referring to the decision criticised by the ombudsman, and I want to quote from it. It says that
	"the evidence base"
	for the DWP's decision
	"was not insufficient since it was based on strong advice from the actuarial profession, which had been developed by a committee containing leading technical experts from most of the major firms of actuaries, and supplemented by GAD as a further independent source of advice. The evidence base for this decision was in fact extremely strong and much stronger than for many (perhaps most) of the decisions that have to be taken by Government."
	The ombudsman acknowledges in her report that the 2002 change did not affect the degree of knowledge which scheme members had.
	Against this background, the Government have considered carefully the ombudsman's first four recommendations, which involve considering whether to restore the lost pension rights of affected scheme members, making consolatory payments and apologising to scheme trustees. As I have already made clear, the Government are unable to accept the findings on which those recommendations are based. We do not believe that the findings of maladministration can be supported by the facts. It simply cannot be right that the losses from the schemes that have collapsed should be met by the taxpayer without establishing any causal connection between the actions criticised in the ombudsman's report and the losses that people have incurred. The report fails to establish that connection.
	Indeed, in respect of the ombudsman's fourth recommendation, relating to schemes that began to wind up between April 2004 and April 2005, the report itself acknowledges that the individuals concerned could be said to have had the opportunity to take whatever action they could to mitigate their potential loss. I do not consider that it would be in the wider public interest for Government to accept that very substantial liability on behalf of taxpayers. We calculate that liability as being in the range of £13 billion and £17 billion in cash terms over the next 60 years. We estimate that the administration costs would be in the region of a further £20 million each year. We do not therefore intend to take the actions recommended by the ombudsman. The taxpayer cannot be asked to accept the responsibility for effectively underwriting the value of private investments in the way the report suggests.
	The Government do, however, accept the ombudsman's fifth recommendation with regard to reviewing the time that it takes to wind up a defined benefit pension scheme. Work is already under way in this area, and we will set out our proposals for how we intend to proceed when that work is completed.
	I would like to finish by making two things absolutely clear. First, this Government have been the first to accept the moral and social obligation to make sure that as many as possible of those who have suffered hardship and distress in these circumstances receive financial support. That is why this Government have set up the financial assistance scheme, with £400 million of public money. The scheme is designed to provide help to those who have lost the most and who are in the greatest need—those closest to retirement and who are therefore least able to make alternative provision. The scheme will currently help up to 15,000 people who have faced significant occupational pension losses. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is customary to hear statements of this kind in silence. Hon. Members will have their own opportunities to respond in due course.

John Hutton: The financial assistance scheme will top up those people's pensions with financial support, to give a maximum income of up to £12,000 a year. The Government are prepared to look again at all aspects of the scheme as part of the current spending review, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday made it clear that
	"we will expedite that review and do it as quickly as we possibly can".—[Official Report, 15 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1450.]
	Secondly, this Government have led the way in providing greater levels of security for the future. We have replaced the MFR, which is of course a large part of the subject of this report, with new scheme funding arrangements that are more flexible and fit for purpose. The Pension Protection Fund and the new pensions regulator will transform security for members of defined benefit schemes.
	We do not underestimate the importance of this issue for those people who have been affected by pension scheme closures, particularly when employers are insolvent and cannot make up any deficiency in scheme funding. We will continue to do what we can to help them. That is the fair and sensible way for us to proceed.

Philip Hammond: May I start with the bit that the Secretary of State missed out? On behalf of Opposition Members, I should like to express my sympathy for the 85,000 people who have lost their pensions through occupational pension scheme failures. Those are decent people who set out to do the right thing to try to ensure a decent retirement for themselves, and they have seen their dreams of a comfortable and secure retirement cruelly shattered. Their plight is not only a series of personal tragedies, but a tragedy for the cause of increased pension saving as confidence in the system is further undermined.
	The ombudsman's report specifically addresses misleading information by Government, but let us not forget the context. In spite of any amount of dodgy information, the problem would never have arisen if the pension funds in question had not failed. The Government must accept their share of responsibility for those failures, as well as for the information that misled people about the consequences. It was this Government who reduced the minimum funding requirement for occupational pension schemes. It was this Government and the present Chancellor who raided pension funds and are still raiding pension funds, to the tune of £5 billion a year with his pension stealth tax, equivalent to £120 billion of capital value wiped off pension funds.
	So the Government stand accused not only of misleading about the consequences of the failure of occupational pension funds, but of helping to precipitate that failure. On the first count the ombudsman, an official of Parliament charged with the task of reporting to Parliament on claims of maladministration, has investigated and found that maladministration has occurred. What is the Government's response? It is a direct challenge to the authority of Parliament. The accused in the dock has decided that he will be judge and jury in his own case. He has just spent 10 minutes of his 15-minute statement going over the case again and telling us that the ombudsman, an Officer of the House, got her findings wrong.
	The ombudsman rightly replies to the right hon. Gentleman that
	"Parliament has decided that it is my role—and not that of any party to a complaint—to determine what constitutes maladministration."
	The House must insist that the Government bow to the decision arrived at by the due process which the House put in place in respect of the factual finding of maladministration by the ombudsman. While they are at it, the Government could also comply with the ombudsman's recommendation that they apologise. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's mother ever taught him this, but my mother always taught me that an apology costs nothing.
	The real problem for the Government is that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling), then Secretary of State for Social Security, and the present Secretary of State for Transport, has already committed the Government to the principle of redress. In March 2000 he told the House that:
	"As a matter of principle, we believe that when someone loses out because they were given the wrong information by a Department, they are entitled to redress."—[Official Report, 15 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 308.]
	The Secretary of State has sold the pass, leaving Ministers in the ridiculous position of trying to deny the ombudsman's findings of maladministration because that would-be Chancellor of the Exchequer has already committed them to providing redress in those circumstances.
	Surprisingly, yesterday at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister was rather more honest about the situation. He did not say the ombudsman was wrong. He did not question her findings of maladministration. He simply told the House that the Government could not pay what he claimed would be a £15 billion bill.
	However, the ombudsman's principal recommendation was that the Government should consider whether they should make arrangements for the restoration of the pensions and other benefits of those who had lost out, in her words
	"by whichever means is most appropriate".
	The Prime Minister said yesterday that the Government
	"have to look for another way of dealing with the issue"—[Official Report, 15 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1456.]
	The obvious way, to which the Secretary of State alluded, is the financial assistance scheme, which was put in place to help people who lost their pensions or suffered diminished pensions because their pension funds had failed. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about his willingness to look again at the way the financial assistance scheme works. At present, it does not work. It is limited to people who are already retired or who are within three years of retirement age when the scheme fails. It is slow and cumbersome. Only 27 people have received payments from the scheme, out of 85,000 people who have lost their pensions or suffered diminution of their pensions. The fund is clearly underfunded for its stated purpose, having only £20 million a year at its disposal.
	Will the Secretary of State as a matter of urgency look at how the financial assistance scheme can be reconstructed to help a much wider group of people who have suffered loss of pension rights through no fault of their own? He said in his statement that it would be wrong for the whole burden to fall on the taxpayer. With that thought in mind, will he consider the possible use of unclaimed assets, in particular unclaimed pension and insurance assets, to see whether those could be used to support an expanded financial assistance scheme?
	When we proposed that last year, the Chancellor said that those assets did not exist, but since the general election he has discovered them and earmarked some of them for one of his own pet schemes. It would be a more appropriate use of unclaimed assets in the pension and insurance sector to use them to fund failures in that sector. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to ask his colleagues at the Treasury to embark upon a serious piece of work to identify the extent and scope of those assets, to see whether they could contribute towards a remedy of the situation.
	When the Secretary of State is talking to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor about additional funding for the financial assistance scheme, will he remind him of the £45 billion that he has had so far from pension funds with his pension stealth tax, and the £5 billion a year that he continues to levy on those pension funds, even as the system is collapsing about his ears? Will he remind the Chancellor of the pension fund failures and the misery suffered by tens of thousands of individual stakeholders in consequence?
	Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have used the figure of £15 billion. The Secretary of State today spoke of £13 billion to £17 billion. That is a cash figure and it is meaningless. Will he make a commitment today to put in the Library for the benefit of all Members a properly worked out net present value figure for the cost of making good the pension funds, so that Members can understand what the real figure is, not the hyped-up figure that he and the Prime Minister have been using?
	The Government must accept without further delay the ombudsman's factual finding of maladministration. If they do not, the authority of Parliament and the credibility of the ombudsman's office will be critically undermined. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, South-West had already committed them to the principle of redress in these circumstances, but the ombudsman's recommendations leave scope for examining various ways to deliver that redress—through the financial assistance scheme, or perhaps by revisiting the use of unclaimed assets, as I suggested. The commitment to redress, in whichever form, has already been made by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government, so Ministers cannot duck it by refusing to accept the ombudsman's finding of fact. It is for the Government to deliver on that commitment, and a great deal is at stake. With national pensions day ahead of us this Saturday, and the Government's response to the Turner report eagerly awaited in the spring, if the Government get this wrong and send the wrong signal about the security and safety of pension funds to the British public, there is a real danger that efforts to address Britain's pension crisis by promoting pension saving will be fatally undermined before they even get off the starting blocks.

John Hutton: I agree, in some respects, with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that we establish proper arrangements for confirming the security and confidence that people have in their pension investments and pension savings. We have taken action to try to strengthen those arrangements, and I am confident that we have succeeded.
	I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for what I have said about the financial assistance scheme, which is the right way to see what further help, if any, we can provide for pensioners who are caught in that particularly difficult situation. I have listened to his expressions of concern and sympathy, which we all feel, but many people in the country will regard that as crocodile tears. [Interruption.] It is important to make that point because his party had plenty of opportunities to devise a similar compensation or assistance scheme, which it completely failed to do. It is all well and good for him to express his concern, but no financial assistance scheme was previously available. [Interruption.] He referred to when pension schemes started failing, but he clearly knows nothing about the issue, because it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that pension schemes suddenly started to collapse in 1997. We have implemented the necessary provisions and are examining further help.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to unclaimed assets, which are obviously a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and the £5 billion figure. Since 1997, there have been two significant impacts on pension funds: first, rising life expectancy has increased the costs of UK pension funds by some £250 billion; and, secondly, the fall in world stock markets at the end of the 1990s had a similar impact. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like it because they do not like the facts of the matter and are not prepared to listen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very serious matter that affects many thousands of people outside this House. I think that we should conduct our affairs seriously and, if we can, politely, this afternoon. Hon. Members must listen to the Secretary of State's answers.

John Hutton: Recent research shows that the figure was never £5 billion. The sum was accompanied by tax cuts for business, and it may well be not much more than half of the widely quoted figure.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman argued that Governments must always accept the findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner, but that was certainly not the way in which the previous Tory Government used to respond. I simply draw his attention to his party's rejection of the Barlow Clowes report. If he wants to be credible, he must be consistent, but he has no consistency whatsoever.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, the Front-Bench statement and response have taken almost half an hour, and I want as many hon. Members as possible to get in this afternoon. May we have brisk questions and, hopefully, brisk responses, too?

Terry Rooney: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the clarity that he has brought to the situation. Will he confirm that there should always be a correlation between the evidence and the verdict? The FAS was set up to cover the current comprehensive spending period, and we need early action before the start of next year's period. Will he indicate the time scale of any review of the scope, extent and financing of the FAS?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that we are looking to expedite the review of the FAS, and I hope that we can do so in the near future.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but I fear that his response to the ombudsman's report will have created even greater anger and an even greater sense of betrayal among those people who have lost their pensions. As I understand it, the essence of his statement is that he believes that the Government have got more or less everything right and that the ombudsman has got more or less everything wrong. With respect, his Department has had a chance to put those points to the ombudsman over the past few months, and I remind him of her conclusion:
	"I have found that maladministration was a significant contributory factor in the creation of financial loss . . . Nothing in the DWP's submissions persuades me otherwise."
	As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pointed out, paragraph 7.26 of the ombudsman's report states:
	"Parliament has decided that it is my role—and not that of any party to a complaint—to determine what constitutes maladministration".
	If the Government are going to trample over the ombudsman's report, what is the point in having a parliamentary ombudsman and giving her those responsibilities? I hope that Committees of this House, including the Public Administration Committee, will take up the way in which the DWP has dealt with the report.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that those people who have lost their pensions will now feel doubly betrayed, not only because of what originally happened, but because of the way in which the Government have dealt with the report, which comprehensively condemns the Government and states that they provided information that was
	"inaccurate, incomplete, unclear and inconsistent"?
	Is the defence in the DWP response to the ombudsman's report—that many people will not have bothered to read those leaflets or that those who have read them will not have paid any attention to them—good enough? One wonders why the Government bother to distribute such leaflets, if people are not supposed to read them or pay attention to them. The Secretary of State's statement was peppered with the excuse that people should have read the small print in the leaflets, but that is the approach of a dodgy second-hand car dealer, which one would not expect from a Secretary of State charged with regulating such matters.
	On cost, I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge about the £15 billion figure that the Prime Minister has been waving around, and I want a clear commitment that the Secretary of State will put an explanation in the Library. I also want a clear commitment that the Secretary of State is not going to fob off people with a token increase in the FAS, when a more substantive measure, such as extending the protections in the pension protection fund to people who are currently losing out in relation to the ombudsman's report and the existing FAS, is clearly needed. Will he tell us the cost of such action? Is that not precisely the type of expenditure that should fall to the contingency reserve? Given that this Government can find billions of pounds to fund an unjustified war in Iraq, surely they can find the money out of the reserve to fund such compensation.
	As a Minister told the House of Commons in 2000:
	"We are aware of the importance of protecting members' rights . . . If we cannot do that, they have no one else to look to".—[Official Report, 3 April 2000; Vol. 366, c. 765.]
	What has changed? Why do Ministers now say that they are not responsible for protecting those rights and that members must look only to employers or trustees? Surely that approach not only betrays those people who have lost their pensions, but undermines the Government strategy to encourage millions more people to take up second pensions. The ombudsman, who obviously has a sense of irony, has entitled her report, "Trusting in the Pensions Promise". Does the Secretary of State understand that if he deals with the ombudsman's report in that way, people will not trust this Government's pensions policy?

John Hutton: I can agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's points, but I am afraid that I am unable to agree with his fundamental analysis of our response to the parliamentary commissioner's report or to the arguments that I have advanced today. It is important—indeed, it is our responsibility—to place on the record why we disagree so strongly with the ombudsman's findings. In particular, in relation to the second of her findings of maladministration, there is very strong evidence that the Government acted on the basis of proper professional advice and followed that advice at every stage of the decision-making process. That is not just my view, but that of the Government Actuary's Department. In those circumstances, particularly given that we have not seen her actuarial advice, it is right and proper for me to put that on the record.
	I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman, as I should have done to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), that we will set out the details of our costings when we produce our fuller response.
	It is simply untrue to say that the Government are not seeking to provide financial assistance and support for people who are caught up in these circumstances, terrible as they are. We are looking to see what more we can do. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, that is the right and proper way for us to proceed.

Derek Wyatt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that the parliamentary ombudsman was brought within the Freedom of Information Act 2000? When I, as an individual, tried to find out information on the report, I was denied it because the ombudsman is not subject to the Information Commissioner.
	I first raised this matter in the House in July 2002. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), I did so because of what has happened at ASW Sheerness and ASW Cardiff. We are most concerned, as regards the financial assistance scheme, that £400 million is not enough. Will my right hon. Friend put into the Library the amount that he considers to be enough? How much money will need to be put into the fund, overall, over the next 20 years?

John Hutton: I think that I had better steer clear of the first part of my hon. Friend's question, because it is not my responsibility to comment on that.
	In relation to my hon. Friend's important points about the financial assistance scheme, let me be clear that I am very happy to meet Members, from both sides of the House, over the next few weeks to talk about the future of the financial assistance scheme as we expedite the review of the scheme and look to the future, to the extent that we are able to, to provide more support for people caught up in these terrible circumstances. That is an open invitation to Members on both sides of the House to express to me their views about what further support we should be providing. We will listen very carefully to all those points.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State's statement is shameful. It is an outrage to come to the House and systematically attack an independent arbiter who was set up by this House independently to investigate accusations of difficulties. His defence that those people had a let-out clause at the bottom of their advice is utter nonsense. Does he not realise that when lawmakers offer advice, it is categorically different from advice offered by second-hand car dealers who then opt out by saying, "You didn't read the small print."? Surely he should accept that his responsibility now is to shoulder the burden of the difficulties that have happened as a result of his advice and deal with it instead of attacking the messenger.

John Hutton: I absolutely reject what lies behind the right hon. Gentleman's comments. They are not accurate and they are not a proper reflection of my statement. We are making it clear—I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not heard me saying this, because it is the seventh time that I have done so—that we are looking to expedite the financial assistance scheme review to see what further help and support we might be able to give.

Sandra Osborne: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will look at the financial assistance scheme again. I can inform the House that my constituents are not looking for sympathy, as suggested by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond); they want their pensions back—the pensions that they have paid for. I am sorry to disagree with the Secretary of State, but they took out an occupational pension on Government advice in the belief that it would provide them with a guaranteed income in retirement. I am therefore disappointed that the ombudsman's recommendations are not being accepted by the Government.
	It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), not the Conservatives, who first mooted the idea of using unclaimed assets to try to provide restoration. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Chancellor about that to see if it is one way in which restoration can be given?

John Hutton: I fully respect the views that my hon. Friend has expressed. As it happens, I am meeting my right hon. Friend the Chancellor later this afternoon, and I promise her that I will relay to him the very strong views that she expressed.

Julie Kirkbride: Whatever the reasons for his announcement, does the Secretary of State accept that all this is a bitter blow to the public's confidence in saving for a private pension for their retirement? Does he recognise that the £15 billion price tag that he has put on this compensation deal is regarded by many as an excuse by the Government not to pay up? When he publishes the information requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), will he also give an assessment of the likely benefit that might accrue to people who have lost their pension scheme so that the House can make a proper assessment of the true compensation package that the taxpayer should be considering?

John Hutton: Yes.

John Denham: My right hon. Friend talked about extending the financial assistance scheme. When he does that, will he bear it in mind that there is a group of schemes, including the APW scheme in Hampshire, in which the employer is still solvent, but the trustees were effectively forced into compromise with no option, with the loss of a significant part of individuals' pensions? So far, the Government have set their face against extending the financial assistance scheme to schemes such as APW. Will he give me an assurance that in the review he will look afresh at that group of schemes to see whether assistance can be offered, because those people have suffered just as much as anybody else, and through no fault of their own?

John Hutton: I fully accept what my right hon. Friend says. This is a very difficult group of cases, and I pay tribute to the work that he has done in drawing our attention to them. We will need to have another look at it as part of the review, but I am afraid that I am not holding out any promise to him that we will be able to make progress. However, I assure him that we will take another look at it and see what further help, if any, we are able to give.

Roger Gale: I believe that the Secretary of State is an honourable and a decent man, but it saddens me that he has had to read out a squalid attempt to justify the unjustifiable. He knows, as we do, that each and every one of those 85,000 cases represents an individual, and a personal tragedy for somebody in retirement. Some of those cases include steelworkers from ASW in Kent, who are my constituents. They were looking to the guardian of the people—the parliamentary ombudsman—to come up with a fair answer. What are we supposed to say to them now that the Government have decided to overturn the findings of the judge?

John Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks.
	The essence of our argument is that we strongly dispute the findings of maladministration, and I have tried to explain to the House why that is so. That is an entirely proper and sensible thing for any Minister to do, particularly when significant amounts of taxpayers' money are involved. I suspect that a Conservative Minister would have done exactly the same. What we have to do now—this is where I agree with the hon. Gentleman—is see whether there is scope for doing more to help more people. I have confirmed today that we are doing that.
	I want to return to an important issue that goes to the heart of this argument. I hear every Conservative Member saying that we should pay out in full for everyone covered by the ombudsman's report, even when the ombudsman herself indicated, in relation to some of the scheme failures, that individuals had the opportunity to mitigate their loss. I am slightly confused by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that, even in those cases, the taxpayer should be required to pay out to meet the losses, given that the evidence that links the alleged maladministration with the loss is not substantiated in her report.

Anne Begg: We can bandy accusations all afternoon as to who is to blame for the collapse of occupational pension schemes, but that does not help the large number of my constituents who have lost some, if not all, of their pension savings following the collapse of the Richards pension scheme. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reiterate that the Government will stand behind those individuals who have lost large amounts of money and savings? The Government are the only body who can reimburse them for their loss, whether through the financial assistance scheme or any other mechanism. I am looking to the Secretary of State to reiterate that these people will be reimbursed in future.

John Hutton: That is why the financial assistance scheme was established: to provide financial assistance and support for people who find themselves in those terrible circumstances. As I keep saying, we are re-examining the scheme to ascertain what further scope there might be for providing additional help. That is at the heart of my announcement and I want every hon. Member to appreciate that the Government are saying that.

Michael Weir: In the statement, the Secretary of State said that the financial assistance scheme would help up to 15,000 people. However, yesterday, only 27 people had registered for it. Does not that suggest that the scheme is barely scratching the surface of the problem? When the right hon. Gentleman attends one of the national pensions day events on Saturday, what arguments will he deploy to persuade people to take the Government's advice to invest in new occupational pension schemes? The Government are obviously not prepared to take responsibility for the failure of past advice to do so.

John Hutton: I have made it clear that no Government can take responsibility for underwriting the total value of people's private savings. That is impossible and untenable. The pension protection fund and the new powers of the pensions regulator mean that we have a much stronger regulatory environment to deal with the point that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers made about securing confidence in the future. That is essential, and the Government are determined to do that.

Kali Mountford: In my view, ordinary people's typical behaviour when making what they perceive as an ordinary decision in ordinary circumstances is at the heart of the matter. Will my right hon. Friend therefore further consider how those people can be quickly supported through the financial assistance scheme, so that those who are retiring imminently or fairly soon have some assurance about their immediate future? Will he also consider the advice that ordinary people are given in what they perceive to be ordinary circumstances? Will he examine how advice is published—I have asked for that on previous occasions—so that such situations can be avoided in future?

John Hutton: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend and I can give her that assurance. As part of the review of the financial assistance scheme, we will have to examine the way in which it currently operates—the time it takes to process applications and the interim financial payments that we can make. I am not satisfied that, so far, only 27 people have received payments. My hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions Reform and I are working together to ascertain how we can improve the current administration of the scheme.

Nigel Dodds: There are many examples of great human tragedy and hardship among the hundreds of people affected by the closure of the company scheme at the Richardson's IFI factory in my constituency. Joe Blair, who was one of the people in the four cases that were taken to the ombudsman, feels that he has been doubly robbed. He lost his pension and now the Government have rejected and attacked the ombudsman's report in a cavalier way. What does the Secretary of State say to Joe Blair and the many others whose health and families have been affected, and who look to the future with despair as a result of what has happened to them?

John Hutton: We have considered the ombudsman's report carefully. It is the first time in more than 40 years that my Department has taken such a view of an ombudsman's report. We have not done that lightly or in a cavalier way, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I can only reiterate the points that I have tried to make repeatedly about the existence of the financial assistance scheme, the reasons for setting it up and the group of people whom we wanted it to help at the beginning of its operations—those in the greatest need and closest to retirement who cannot make alternative financial arrangements. I have made it repeatedly clear that we are taking a further longer look at the financial assistance scheme and I hope to present proposals as soon as possible.

Richard Burden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's restatement of his willingness to review the financial assistance scheme. For my constituents who are workers or former workers at Kalamazoo, time is of the essence. Given the current timetable for the comprehensive spending review, it may leave many people in appalling positions. Will he therefore say a little more about the possibility of expediting the review? Given that the situation requires substantial amounts of money, will he speak to appropriate firms and bodies in the financial sector to ascertain whether, even at this late stage, there may be mileage in considering not purchasing annuities and pooling the schemes' assets to ensure that money can be front-loaded and the cost spread over the maximum period?

John Hutton: On the first point, I do not want to sound repetitive, but we recognise that time is of the essence. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced yesterday that we would expedite the review of the financial assistance scheme. I hope to present proposals as soon as that work has been completed.
	My hon. Friend's last point is important and many of the delegations that I have met have raised it with me. If we took his advice—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would help if the Secretary of State addressed the House or, at least, his microphone, partly through courtesy but also because not doing so makes it difficult for others to hear.

John Hutton: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Everyone is probably fed up to the back teeth with hearing from me this afternoon.
	There is a significant problem with taking my hon. Friend's advice about dropping the requirement to purchase an annuity. If we dropped it, there is clearly the potential for creating problems further on because it is inevitable that the remaining pension schemes would rapidly run out of resources. It is neither fair nor reasonable for us to do that. That is why the requirements are what they are.

Steve Webb: The Secretary of State appears to say one of two things: either the ombudsman is ill informed and has not done a proper job, or she is well informed but her views are irrelevant. Which is it?

John Hutton: The ombudsman has prepared a thorough report and reached conclusions. We disagree with them.

Jim Cunningham: May I reinforce the point that the Secretary of State should examine the position with some urgency to help people, some of whom are in serious predicaments? People from, for example, Federal-Mogul in Coventry, are waiting for the outcome. So far, we have discussed the ombudsman's report, but should we not hold a proper inquiry into where the money that was invested went and who spent it?

John Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to expedite the review of the financial assistance scheme and I look forward to discussing that with him.

Paul Goodman: Since 1995, public sector pensions, including ours and Ministers' pensions, have become relatively more secure, but private sector pensions—partly because of the £45 billion tax on pension funds—have got relatively less secure. Given that context, does not the Secretary of State acknowledge that my constituents and others will greet with incredulity the Government's overriding the judge's verdict on maladministration?

John Hutton: I have already made it clear that the £45 billion figure is rubbish. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the security of defined benefit schemes, I remind him of the Pensions Act 2004, which will significantly improve matters in ways that I am sure he would like.

Frank Doran: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and especially his commitment to reviewing the financial assistance scheme. In my constituency, nearly 1,000 members of the Richards pension fund managed to be admitted to the scheme, but that has not removed the deep uncertainty, which has been with them for a long time—since the first rumours circulated about the state of the pension fund through to its closure, and then the fears about whether they would get into the scheme. It will be several years before my constituents will be without uncertainty. I hope that my right hon. Friend views that as a matter of urgency and will thus bring not only clarity but certainty to the thousands of pensioners who are affected.

John Hutton: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns and those of his constituents. That is precisely why we are expediting the review of the financial assistance scheme.

Richard Shepherd: As the Secretary of State knows, based on a recommendation by the Government Actuary, the national insurance fund is required to retain a balance that is equivalent to one sixth of annual expenditure. That would equate to £9.5 billion in 2004. The balance actually held amounted to £29 billion. The Government Actuary reported that that balance will reach £60 billion by 2010—an average increase of between £5 billion and £6 billion a year. The funds are available to meet the ombudsman's recommendations and it is an important point of principle that the Government should consider fulfilling in full the obligations that she set out.

John Hutton: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that it is impossible for Governments to guarantee the value of private savings in the way that he suggests. We all need to think very carefully about that.

David Taylor: Among the 85,000 personal tragedies are the 572 deferred pensioners involved in the fund collapse in October 2000 at British United Shoe Machinery in Leicestershire. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the £15 billion that he has cited—giving an average £176,000 to each of the 85,000 people involved—includes any assessment of the ombudsman's second recommendation in relation to consolatory payments for the inconvenience, distress and uncertainty that she believes these people have had to endure? Has any assessment been made of the cost of such payments? Do they lie outside the £15 billion?

John Hutton: I think that those payments are included. We will set out the full details of the costings when we produce our report.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a large number of former employees of the Albert Fisher Group in my constituency whose pensions have been decimated and whose lives have been ruined? They will certainly be feeling no better after his lacklustre performance this afternoon. He has mentioned the figure of £15 billion. My constituents tell me that the capital required to give 100 per cent. relief to the 85,000 scheme members across the country is only £2.8 billion. If indexed, that would go up to £5.5 billion. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the correct figures are put in the Library?

John Hutton: Yes, we will put our figures in the full response to the ombudsman's report.

Julian Lewis: I warmly welcome the glimmer of hope that the Secretary of State has given for the first time to APW Electronics employees, in his answer to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). May I ask him to focus, however, on the health warning that was attached to the leaflets? When I read something that says, "This advice is for guidance only", it makes me think that I should be guided by it. People who are encouraged to invest are told, in a forthright way in many advertisements, that the value of their investment can go down as well as up. Will the Secretary of State at least consider ruling that, in future, all such guidance will be phrased in much stronger and less ambiguous terms?

John Hutton: The information to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the information that successive Governments have used to describe these matters. Conservative Members have simply not acknowledged that fact today.

Michael Wills: May I add my plea to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) that the Secretary of State look again at assistance for those who have suffered under schemes wound up by solvent companies? Will he also look again at tightening up measures such as contribution notices, to dissuade companies from taking such action in future?

John Hutton: There is no question but that the issue of solvent employers is probably the most difficult issue that we need to consider as part of the review. As I said to my right hon. Friend, I do not want to raise false expectations in this regard, but we will have another look at this.

Adam Price: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the European Commission has conducted its own study of these matters and that its interim findings have already concluded that successive British Governments have failed to meet their responsibilities? Is the Secretary of State as dismissive of the views of the Commission as he has been today of those of the ombudsman?

John Hutton: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, that legal case is still continuing, and I do not want to comment on current legal proceedings.

Charles Walker: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government's stewardship of our pensions over the past nine years has been less than stellar? In fact, it has been a complete and utter disaster. Does he accept that, every time he comes to the House, it is to tell hon. Members another horror story?

John Hutton: No.

Michael Penning: In good faith, I took a delegation of the 700 Dexion workers who had had their pensions stolen from them to see the Secretary of State. I have spoken to members of the delegation this morning, and they feel betrayed. At no time during the meeting did the Secretary of State indicate that the Government would ignore the advice of the ombudsman. This is a bad day for Parliament. If that kind of advice is ignored, how can people have any faith in what goes on in this House?

John Hutton: It was clearly not appropriate for me to say at that meeting, before the ombudsman's report had been published, that I was going to reject it.

Paul Holmes: I have been raising this issue in the House since shortly after I was first elected to Parliament in 2001, on behalf of my constituents who work for Dema Glass, Coalite and Chesterfield Cylinders, who have been robbed of their occupational pensions. Some of those people, including a Labour councillor, have saved into the schemes for more than 40 years, but now they will have to live in poverty in retirement. Will the Minister undertake to meet some of my constituents, and others, to explain in person why he is rejecting the independent expert opinion of the ombudsman and why, despite repeated Government assurances, those pensions were not safe and not guaranteed?

John Hutton: Yes, I am always willing to meet the constituents of hon. Members in such circumstances; I have done so repeatedly. All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we have set out our arguments again today, and it is for others to judge them. We are determined to provide help and support for those in the greatest need when their pension schemes collapse. We are absolutely determined to continue to do that.

Andrew Turner: I usually feel sympathy for the monkey when it is clearly the organ grinder who has messed up. I would feel a great deal more sympathy for the Secretary of State if he had started out by expressing sympathy with those who had lost their pensions, and if he had then not behaved like a desiccated calculating machine and compounded his error by questioning the good faith of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). The Secretary of State knows that many people have lost out as a result of these problems, but even the £2.5 billion a year stolen by the Chancellor from pension schemes would be enough to pay for the losses that those people have suffered. Will the Secretary of State tell me why Government spokesmen were rubbishing the ombudsman's report before it was published?

John Hutton: We have set out clearly, today and yesterday, why we do not agree with the ombudsman in her principal findings of maladministration, and I have set out those arguments again today.

David Gauke: The Secretary of State has given the impression today that not only was there no Government maladministration, but that there seems to be no recognition of the scale of the problem faced by many people, including my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who used to work at Dexion. Does the Secretary of State accept that the stance that the Government are taking will damage confidence in occupational pensions and weaken the parliamentary ombudsman, and that it gives the impression that the Government are out of touch, arrogant and uncaring?

John Hutton: No, I do not accept any of those allegations. We are the first Government to accept that there is a responsibility to make financial provision in these circumstances. In the context of the facts—the facts will always speak louder than the hon. Gentleman's words—people will come to their own views on these matters.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the main business.

Points of Order

Peter Ainsworth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that, following the question put to the Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) yesterday, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has today issued a written statement admitting fundamental problems with the Rural Payments Agency and announcing the dismissal of its chief executive. This is extremely serious news for the thousands of farm businesses that already face a difficult financial future. In her statement today, the Secretary of State says that she has asked the new acting chief executive to report to her by Tuesday on the immediate steps needed to get the payments back on track. What indication have you received that the Secretary of State will come to the House to make an oral statement as soon as she has received that report?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the seriousness of the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I have no knowledge at this time of any plans that the Secretary of State might have to make such a statement. However, she will no doubt have noted the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, which are now on the record, and will decide accordingly.

David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that we are not now to proceed with Lords amendments to the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill this afternoon. Will you confirm that that is the case and tell us whether you have been notified of any reason for the delay? Given that we were informed of the business of the House for the next two weeks just two hours ago, without any alternative date being given, may we assume that those Lords amendments will now be taken after the Easter recess?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that I understand that his supposition is correct, but I also understand that the Minister will deal with the matters he has raised when we reach them during the debate later today.

Estimates

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
	That this House agrees with the Report this day of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Watson.]
	Question agreed to.

David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful for your earlier guidance, but will we actually reach the matter in the debate if it is not to be proceeded with? You said that the Minister would give an indication on the matter when we reached it in the debate, but if it is to be withdrawn we will never reach that point. I wonder whether you could give me some further guidance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am advised that the hon. Gentleman should pursue the matter through the usual channels. I also understand that when we reach the matter during the debate it will be dealt with then. The Minister will either move or not move the items that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Identity Cards Bill

Lords reasons for insisting on amendments and disagreeing to Commons amendments, considered.
	Lords reasons: 16C and 22D

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 16 and 22, and proposes the Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof.
	The amendments are technical amendments to clause   8, making it clear that an application for an identity card must include or accompany one to be entered on the national identity register. We have already had one debate on the Lords amendments this week, on Monday 13 March, when the House rejected them for the second time. However, their lordships have again insisted on their amendments to remove the requirement for anyone obtaining a designated document such as a passport to register and be issued with an identity card.
	Yesterday, in the other place, the mover of the main Lords amendment, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, rebuked me in his summation in the following terms:
	"The other thing worth saying is that last Monday, the Home Secretary . . . in levelling his defence against our proposal to make the scheme voluntary, did not in any sense call upon the constitutional justification of the Commons' position that has been the mainstay of the noble Baroness's closing speech"
	—he was referring to Baroness Scotland of Asthal—
	"and has been the subject of speeches from various noble Lords. Mr Clarke attempted to justify the Government's case according to the issues that he raised in the other place—none of them were constitutional issues; they related to the merits and demerits of this Bill.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 2006; Vol. 679, c. 1248–49.]
	I intend to remedy that defect in my presentation today. Let me start with what was said by Lord Strathclyde, the leader of the main Opposition party in the Lords. He spoke very wisely, as befits a graduate of the University of East Anglia. He said:
	"This House should always proceed with caution when it is trying to defeat the Government, even when it is asking the House of Commons to think again on a Bill it has passed. Generally speaking, we do that. I think we always do that. What is so unusual about this aspect is that the Government have already been defeated on two occasions, and therefore this is the third occasion on which we are dealing with this matter.
	In this context, perhaps I may make three points. First, I think the House should proceed with caution and should deal with matters as controversial as this only when they are very few in number. This is the first time in this Session that we have come to an issue of this kind. Secondly, we should proceed only on an issue where there is a good deal of public support for what this House is doing. Thirdly, we should not proceed if there are issues to do with the Salisbury convention. My noble Friend and the Government may disagree about the use of the Salisbury convention; I am entirely satisfied that there are no Salisbury convention implications if the House were to return this small point back to another place."
	I shall deal with each of those three points. The first was that the House of Lords should proceed with caution. I think that Lord Strathclyde was quite right about that, and he should take his own advice. The fact is that the amendment is not a small point. It constitutes a major and deliberate effort by the Opposition parties to sabotage the whole of a Bill that has been agreed by this House, and that was set out to the public during the general election campaign. I hope that the Lords will indeed proceed with caution, and will not adopt a strategy that is designed to undermine the entire Bill.
	Secondly, Lord Strathclyde said that the other place
	"should proceed only on an issue where there is a good deal of public support for what this House is doing."
	I remind the House—and perhaps, via this House, the other place—of the facts about public support. There is not such support for what the House of Lords is doing. Even the result of the latest opinion poll sponsored by the NO2ID campaign shows that 52 per cent. of the public are in favour, while Home Office research shows that 70 per cent. are in favour.
	Lord Strathclyde said that the other place
	"should proceed only on an issue where there is a good deal of public support for what this House is doing."
	According to the NO2ID campaign, 52 per cent. of people are in favour of the identity cards and against what the other place is doing; and, as I have said, Home Office research shows that 70 per cent. are in favour.
	The Conservative election manifesto was entirely silent on the matter, although the then leader of the party was a known supporter of identity cards. However, the findings of an opinion poll published by ICM before the election, in December 2004, show that some 80 per cent. of the public were then in favour of the introduction of identity cards, with 88 per cent. of Conservative supporters, 81 per cent. of Labour supporters and 72 per cent. of Liberal Democrat supporters in favour. So the answer to Lord Strathclyde's second point—that the Lords should block the will of this elected Chamber only if there is clear public support—is that there is not.

Tony Baldry: Surely the point is that it was not put to the people who were polled that the system would be compulsory. I am sure that there would be huge support for voluntary identity cards. The issue that the House of Lords and this House are having to consider is the whole issue of voluntary versus compulsory. I suspect that if those people had been asked, "Should it be a criminal offence not to carry an identity card?" or, "Should it be compulsory to carry an identity card?", the answer would have been very different.

Charles Clarke: We have already agreed, in response to proposals from the other place, that before the stage was reached of making identity cards compulsory there would be further primary legislation. The Bill explicitly excludes a requirement for anyone to carry an identity card, so what the hon. Gentleman has said is completely incorrect.

Tobias Ellwood: May I add to the effective point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry)? There would be more consensus, not only in the House but among the public, if we could see the final price tag. Can the Home Secretary tell us how much the whole project will cost the taxpayer?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman may have made my point for me. We have debated costs with the House of Lords, and we accepted an amendment on the subject tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), in the spirit of seeking agreement.
	As for the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the NO2ID poll explicitly asked whether the card should be issued with a passport, which is what we are dealing with here.

William Cash: Would the Home Secretary continue to take the line that he is taking in the context of what the Information Commissioner has said on the subject—that the Bill would cause a sea change in the relationship between the individual and the state? Has he spoken to the Information Commissioner recently, and has he any reason to suppose that the Information Commissioner has changed his view?

Charles Clarke: I have not spoken to the Information Commissioner recently but, as I have said, there has been considerable debate on the substance of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman speaks of the relationship between the individual and the state. A general election is a pretty important part of the relationship between the individual and the state. That is why I think that the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend Lord Strathclyde was right to say yesterday that in his view—not mine—the House of Lords should proceed only on an issue on which there was a good deal of public support for what that House was doing. My point is that there is not.

Andrew Love: Is my right hon. Friend at all concerned about the apparent drift away from the high levels of support for identity cards in the past? Does he recognise that if the identity card is introduced with a designated document, for a number of years people will be charged for an identity card without receiving any of the benefits, which will further undermine the system?

Charles Clarke: I accept the first point, but not the second. Because of the debate about these issues and because the precise questions are different in different polling data, there is an issue concerning public support that needs to be addressed. That is a major part of the proposal, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. Lord Strathclyde's second point was narrow, but important. It is: is there
	"a good deal of public support"
	for the House of Lords to overturn the elected House consistently on these matters? I contend that there is not.

David Heath: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: No, I will not; I want to deal first with Lord Strathclyde's third point. He said that the House of Lords
	should not proceed if there are issues to do with the Salisbury convention."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 2006; Vol.679. c. 1244–45.]
	That is a very important point and it is worth recalling what the position is. First, it is absolutely clear that the introduction of ID cards is a manifesto commitment that has been approved twice by the elected House. I remind Members of the view of the Salisbury convention taken in January 2000 by the royal commission on the reform of the House of Lords. It was chaired by Lord Wakeham, who is not a notable Government toady, except when the Conservatives were in government. Recommendation 7 of the commission's report states:
	"The principles underlying the 'Salisbury Convention' remain valid and should be maintained. A version of the 'mandate' doctrine should continue to be observed; where the electorate has chosen a party to form a Government, the elements of that party's general election manifesto should be respected by the second chamber. More generally"—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Charles Clarke: I will complete the quotation:
	"More generally, the second chamber should be cautious about challenging the clearly expressed views of the House of Commons on any public policy issue. It is not possible to reduce this to a simple formula, particularly one based on manifesto commitments."
	I argue, therefore, that that doctrine exists and that it addresses the point made by Lord Strathclyde.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Charles Clarke: I shall give way one or two times.

David Heath: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way; we are familiar with his semantic acrobatics on this issue. Given that this scheme will not, if he has his way, be anything other than compulsory for anybody who wants to drive a car or to go abroad on holiday—probably nine out of 10 of the population—is not this the primary legislation to which he refers, on which we should have a proper debate on whether the scheme is compulsory or voluntary? It clearly is compulsory.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, but I regard it as characteristic for the Liberal Democrats to say explicitly that they do not care about the outcome of general elections. His colleagues in the other place have made it clear that they do not accept that the result of the election was right. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) came very close to saying that explicitly when we debated this issue the other day. The Liberal Democrats must answer to the public for their contempt for them in respect of this issue.

Kali Mountford: Does the Home Secretary recall that when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was a Home Office Minister he told this House that it was absolutely clear that ID cards would start on a voluntary basis, leading to compulsion? Indeed, such statements were made before the general election and therefore must be taken into account as part of the manifesto. Does that not make this House's position absolutely clear?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Documents published in 2002 and 2003, documents and debates published in 2004, and the 2005 general election manifesto are entirely consistent and clear on this issue.

Anne Snelgrove: As my right hon. Friend knows, I was vice-chair of the Labour party's national policy forum in the run-up to last year's general election, and as such I took a close interest in the manifesto's development. I am pleased to remind him, and ask him to confirm, that that manifesto said that we
	"would introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renewed their passports".
	So it is in our manifesto.

Charles Clarke: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's contribution. She played a major part in developing the policy, and it is clear that the position is exactly as she sets out. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) said a moment or two ago, the position has been clear for some time.

John Redwood: The hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) has let the cat out of the bag—the manifesto clearly states "on a voluntary basis". Why does the Home Secretary not amend the Bill, so that people obtaining passports and driving licences who do not share his confidence in ID cards do not have to have one forced on them? Then, we would all be happy.

Charles Clarke: I shall deal with that point in a moment, but the basic fact is that the biometric data being collected for passports on this basis are broadly the same as those that will be collected for the ID card system. It is absurd, not to mention costly, to have the double process that the Lords want.

Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that name, date and place of birth, address and nationality are the only personal information required on the national identity register? All that information and more is already required for the passport application, so does he agree that the House of Lords is fighting on what is a very narrow point? The issue is simply whether identical information collected for the passport office register can or cannot be transferred to a national identity register.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right and I completely accept his main point. This is not, as Lord Strathclyde suggested, a minor issue; it is a major one and the intention is to destroy the whole scheme.

Edward Garnier: rose—

Charles Clarke: That is also the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who will now set out why he wants to destroy the ID card system as a whole and break the conventions of Parliament.

Edward Garnier: I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way because it enables me to prevent him from carrying on unwittingly misleading this House. He insists on repeating the canard that the biometric passport obligation has something to do with the national identity register system that he wishes to set up. The obligation under the biometric passport system is to provide a system whereby passport officers can read biometrics at the port of entry; it has nothing whatever to do with the entry into the national identity register system that this Government are trying to achieve by stealth. If only they would come clean, they would have a much more sympathetic audience.

Charles Clarke: That is entirely wrong. We discussed this issue earlier this week and we will continue to do so.

Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: I shall not give way any more at this stage.
	I return to what Lord Strathclyde said in the other place yesterday, because it is important. I believe that I have addressed each of the three points that he made. As I said earlier, he made it clear that the Lords should not proceed if there are issues to do with the Salisbury convention. He said that if the Government were not prepared to back down or to find a compromise, the only option was for the unelected House to force the Government to use the Parliament Act procedure to ensure that the will of the elected House prevails.
	The Parliament Act has been used four times since 1949, and Lord Strathclyde is not right to suggest that we have reached the point where that option should be invoked. For the three reasons that he himself gives in columns 1244 and 1245 of the Official Report of yesterday's Lords debate, the other place should indeed think again, just as this place should decide to insist on its own position.

Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way on that point?

Charles Clarke: In a moment. My fourth point is that the Lords amendments would impose an additional burden and cost on the plans for the introduction of ID cards that were approved by this House. It cannot be right for the constituents whom we represent to be denied by those whom they did not elect and cannot remove the most cost-effective option in implementing a scheme. In effect, the Lords voted for the establishment of two parallel biometric databases, with all the cost, inconvenience, confusion and insecurity that that approach involves. That raises the question of whether the unelected House has the right directly to place such burdens on our constituents.
	The remaining issue is, essentially, a constitutional one: whether it is right for the other place to keep insisting on amendments that have been rejected here twice already, and that will be rejected again today.

Stephen McCabe: Such a scheme would not only impose additional costs, which is an issue that clearly exercised the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) earlier; we would also end up with two databases, one unprotected and the other protected by the national identity scheme commissioner. Is that not what the Lords are advocating?

Charles Clarke: That is completely right. The effect of the Lords amendment would be precisely as my hon. Friend says. If it were passed, the protections that this Bill provides for the national identity register would not be available for the biometric passport register.

Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary referred to our exchange on Monday. If Lord Strathclyde is right to say that the Lords should act only when there is a significant amount of public support, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the latest poll that he cited shows that public support for the position taken by the Lords is 10 per cent. higher than was the support for his party at the general election? The numbers in respect of the share of those who voted are about the same, so he surely cannot argue that the Government are justified on this issue, and that the House of Lords is not?

Tony McNulty: That does not make sense.

Charles Clarke: My right hon. Friend is right about the Liberal Democrat arithmetic. The situation is very simple. I repeat that Lord Strathclyde made it clear that the Lords should frustrate the will of the Commons only when there is a "good deal" of public support for what the Lords was doing. The NO2ID campaign is opposed to our policy, but that organisation set the questions in the poll, in which more than half the country said that it did not support the campaign.
	I studied yesterday's Divisions in the Lords carefully, to establish how opinion had moved between the votes on 6 and 15 March. There was almost no change in the position of those peers who are whipped by the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties. On 6 March, 190 peers—principally Tories and Liberal Democrats—were against the Government position. Yesterday, that number rose to 194—almost no change.
	The peers who are not whipped—the Cross Benchers and the bishops—voted on 6 March by 37 to 12 against the Government position, but yesterday a majority was clearly in favour of supporting and not frustrating the Commons' position. [Interruption.] In answer to the hilarity among Opposition Members, I have to add in fairness that there were only four bishops in the total of more than 50 Cross-Bench peers. They were not significant in the arithmetic, although their significance may lie in the guidance that they get from yet another place.
	My point is that it was the whipped Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers who voted to frustrate the elected House and overthrow the Government's position. That was what happened, and I urge my colleagues to sustain the Government's position. I also urge the Opposition to stop trying to frustrate the will of the people.

David Davis: The Home Secretary wants to represent the process in which we are engaged today as a clash between the House of Lords and the democratic will of the people, as represented by the Government. Hon. Members should put to one side the fact that this House of Lords is, after eight years, effectively the Government's creation, and that the opposition to this aspect of the Bill is driven by a belief in the ancient liberties of the British people. The right hon. Gentleman gave us some numbers, but they demonstrate that that belief transcends party. It drives an opposition that encompasses all parties, including Cross Benchers—

Charles Clarke: No.

David Davis: Yes: the Home Secretary said that a majority of peers—Cross Benchers, Liberal, Labour and Conservative peers—were against the proposal, not that all of them were. That is another factor that we must put to one side. To justify his stance as the representative of the people, the right hon. Gentleman is forced to pretend that the Bill exactly reflects the Labour party manifesto, but that point was destroyed by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove), who was such a senior person in the Labour party during the election.
	The words of the Labour manifesto are clear.

Anne Snelgrove: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: I will in a moment, as I have referred to the hon. Lady. I did not know that Labour Members were so sensitive these days, but there we are.
	The words of the Labour manifesto are clear. It states that ID cards will be
	"rolling out on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".
	The key word is "voluntary", and we shall return to it time and again in the next five or 10 minutes. The Home Secretary has been forced to declare that the ID card is effectively voluntary.

Anne Snelgrove: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: I will in a moment, the hon. Lady need not worry. To do that, the right hon. Gentleman is forced to the ludicrous assertion that passports are somehow voluntary, too. He said that, in terms, the other day.
	Later this year, the World cup tournament will be held in Germany. When I travel there to support the England team, and I tell the German immigration office, "I've not brought my passport because the Home Secretary tells me it's voluntary", I am sure that that officer will be very understanding.

Andy Burnham: It is voluntary to go.

David Davis: We will come back to that in a minute. I am getting heckled by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), and I shall give way to him in a moment, when he will learn about heckling. I am sure that I will be treated very sympathetically by the German immigration service. When I am eventually let out of prison and I return to Britain, I am sure that I shall have no trouble getting back in without a passport.
	It is, of course, ridiculous to assert that passports are voluntary. Perhaps what the Home Secretary means is that foreign travel is voluntary, which is what the Under-Secretary said from a sedentary position. I think that that is what the Government are trying to say.
	I suppose that we can also put to one side the disgraceful idea that British citizens, of all people, can leave their own country only if they agree to let the Government intrude on their privacy, on a scale unprecedented in British history. However, does he really believe that foreign travel is voluntary for business men whose customers are all abroad? Does he think that travel is voluntary for people whose parents or children live abroad, as is increasingly the case today? Does he think that foreign travel is voluntary for people whose children get in trouble abroad—something that we have read about too often in the past few months and years? [Interruption.] Does the Under-Secretary of State want to intervene? If so, I shall give way.

Andy Burnham: indicated dissent.

David Davis: I see that he does not want to intervene. Does the Home Secretary think that foreign travel is voluntary for diplomats, soldiers and other Crown servants and their families?

Charles Clarke: It is not compulsory.

David Davis: The Home Secretary says that foreign travel is not compulsory. Oh, yes it is: I am afraid that people cannot be Foreign Office employees without going abroad. The idea is clearly ridiculous. Under this Bill, ID cards are clearly not voluntary; they are clearly compulsory.

Anne Snelgrove: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but either he has cloth ears or he has problems with semantics. I used to be an English teacher, so I shall give him an English lesson if that is what he wants. In our manifesto, we understood that ID cards would be
	"rolling out on a voluntary basis as people renewed their passports".
	We know what that means. If the right hon. Gentleman does not, that is his problem. The House of Lords should implement our proposals and allow the Bill to go through. Does he agree?

David Davis: The answer to that question is clearly no. The hon. Lady will be aware, as I am, that at least one Home Office Minister recommended that the word "voluntary" should not be used in the manifesto, but the Government insisted on it.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a very important point, but I want to add a small one. When he goes to the World cup, he will not manage to get as far as Germany. Civil aviation regulations mean that it is compulsory for people to have passports before they get on a plane.

David Davis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.

Tony Baldry: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. It is disgraceful for the Government to try to pretend that they are rewriting the manifesto. Did we not all hear the Home Secretary on Monday try to defend this proposal with his reference to free will? He said:
	"That is the free will that people may exercise in deciding whether or not they wish to have a passport . . . That is the free will over what they can do and how they can operate. That is what the wording means."—[Official Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1261.]
	In other words, the Home Secretary seems to suggest that we have a voluntary choice as to whether we have a passport. That is what he said, in terms, on Monday, so the Government cannot come to the House on Thursday and try to rewrite completely what they said then.

David Davis: My hon. Friend is right, and I suspect that the Home Secretary designed his speech today to try to drive away the memory of his second intervention on Monday, which was a ridiculous disgrace.

John Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He will have noted, as the House will have done, that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) a few moments ago used the word "understood" in respect of the Labour manifesto. Does he accept that the hon. Lady has invented a new constitutional doctrine: that the purpose of a manifesto is not to communicate a clear message to the electorate, but to communicate internally to party colleagues in the doublespeak that only they understand? Will he confirm that establishing what proportion of the electorate thought that the return of a Labour Government would mean compulsory ID cards would require several noughts after the decimal point before one reached a positive figure?

David Davis: My hon. Friend is right in all except one respect. This doctrine is not entirely novel; it first saw the light of day in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".

Desmond Swayne: When I was mobilised to serve in Iraq, which was not a voluntary process, I was required to produce a passport in order to travel—[Interruption.] It was scrutinised at Brize Norton. That again was not a voluntary process. Other officers and soldiers had to acquire a passport in order to comply. I suppose, ultimately, the decision to join the armed forces was voluntary. Was that what the Government meant?

David Davis: My hon. Friend makes his point perfectly. He was heckled from a sedentary position by a Labour Member who said that he had military ID, but if my hon. Friend was taking members of his family, they would not have military ID. Indeed, I see no exemption in the Bill to allow people not to be put on the national identity register because they are soldiers, Crown servants, Foreign Office employees or the like.

Chris Bryant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: No, I shall not. I must make some progress. I may give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I am not sure.
	We can see that the Government's proposal is clearly in breach of their own manifesto, unless one takes the attitude that the manifesto did not mean to say that or that that is not what they understood it to mean—but the words mean what they mean. This part of the Bill is not the exercise of a democratic mandate. The best that can be said of it is that it is an exercise in elected dictatorship, full stop. So the Lords are right to amend it and they are entirely within their rights. That point destroys the entire speech that the Home Secretary just made.
	We have continually been treated by the Home Secretary and his Ministers—sometimes from a sedentary position, but mostly on the "Today" programme—to new reasons for this legislation, be they terrorism, welfare reform, immigration or fraud. One Minister puts up a reason for the idea, only for another honest Minister to admit that the Government have overstated their case. That has happened several times in the course of argument over the Bill. That is followed by another Minister coming up with another argument, which is also overstated. That has been most obviously the case on terrorism.
	The Government love to portray everybody except themselves as soft on terrorism. It is their favourite tactic with all of their illiberal legislation. Time and again, impositions are placed on the British people, which they have not faced for centuries, on the basis of arguments that are designed to make other people, the Government think, look soft on terrorism. That has applied most obviously to this Bill. I want the House to listen to the words of Baroness Park of Monmouth. The House should remember that Daphne Park has worked in the defence of our country in some of the most dangerous postings in the world. She has taken more risks in the defence of our country than the Home Secretary has had hot dinners, and that is a pretty high hurdle. I would trust her judgment on the defence of the realm way beyond that of the Prime Minister or, indeed, any Minister. Yesterday she said:
	"The very creation of such an enormous national identity register will be a present to terrorists; it will be a splendid thing for them to disrupt . . . . It will also provide valuable information to organised crime and to the intelligence services of unfriendly countries".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 2006; Vol. 679, c. 1234.]
	So much for our national security.

John Redwood: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case, as always. Could he speculate on why so few peers support the Government on this, given how many new peers have been invited into the House of Lords under this Administration with this very generous Prime Minister? Could it be because they think that the Government have a lousy case?

David Davis: Of course they think that the Government have a lousy case. As I said before, there is opposition to the Bill across all parties. Some Labour Members who have severe worries about the Bill are bravely resisting it. I have made the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) wait for some time, so I shall give way to him.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because he said "No", then "Yes", then "Maybe", but now he says "Yes".

David Davis: rose—

Chris Bryant: I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He said earlier that he thought it was a gross infringement on the ancient liberties of the British people for the state to insist on somebody carrying an ID card. But, as I understand it, he believes that it is entirely appropriate for the state to insist that people should carry a passport when they fly into or out of the country. Why does he not see that there is a paradox there?

David Davis: There is no paradox; however, the point is interesting because I did not say what the hon. Gentleman said I said. Throughout this process, I have always argued—this is an extremely serious point and I am taking the hon. Gentleman's comment seriously—that the problem is not the piece of plastic, such as the type of card that I am holding up, which we all carry for a specific purpose. It is what is behind it. The database is the serious issue. I am entirely in favour of biometrics on passports, but we do not need to have a national identity register, which is what is proposed.

Andy Burnham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: Certainly not. The Under-Secretary, who sits and heckles, gets it all wrong and will not take part in the debate, now wants to take part on an à la carte basis. This is a table d'hôte proposal by the Government and they are going to get a table d'hôte response from me. The latest argument is the ludicrous—I use that word advisedly—assertion by the Home Secretary that having an ID card will limit the intrusions of the state upon the person. That is an extraordinary argument.
	If that were not daft enough, the Home Secretary tells us that citizens will find having an ID card useful, and even valuable. The technology director of Microsoft, no less, pointed out that the identity register will be a honeypot for hackers, fraudsters, thieves and terrorists. It will worsen the risk of identity theft. Far from being an infallible security system, we hear this week that the Government intend to rely on chip and pin technology to protect the card—the same technology that we have used for years in the common, everyday Visa card. So much for improving our personal security.

Simon Hughes: Is not the answer to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that until today we have never required this document, a passport, to travel in our country?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Visual aids are strongly discouraged, not least because the reporters of the Official Report find it very difficult to understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) accept that we have never required a passport to travel in our own country and, even if the Government were to implement their proposal, we would not be required to carry one?

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is one of the distinctions of our country that we are not required to identify ourselves at every turn. We are not required to live in a society that requires us to produce a pass of any sort. That is one of the things that has distinguished us as a country over many years, indeed, centuries.

Andy Burnham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman had his chance, and he missed it.

Kali Mountford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: I want to come to a close on this.
	If an ID card were really valuable to the citizen, as the Home Secretary claims, presumably ordinary citizens would want them; everybody would want them if they were as valuable as the Home Secretary claims. So why are the Government not willing to leave citizens to make decisions for themselves? If cards are going to be popular, if they are going to make people happy, if they are going to do things for them, then they will take them up of their own accord. What we are talking about today is the compulsion issue—they will not need to be compelled to have an ID card. Of course, the Government do not believe their own argument. That became clear in the Home Secretary's view of this amendment.

Laura Moffatt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: No.
	The Government believe that unless they force a majority of the population to have an ID card by covert compulsion, they will never win the vote to make it compulsory in the final analysis. They know that if the card is not compulsory, it will not just be ineffective against terrorism, fraud, illegal immigration and crime; it will be completely useless.
	Listening to the Home Secretary go on about the extra costs arising from the scheme, I was almost dumbstruck. The Opposition are not imposing £20 billion on the public for no virtue—we are not doing that, but that is what will happen.
	Covert compulsion has become necessary to the Government's ill-starred strategy, which is incompetent in design, ineffective in execution and deceitful in delivery; but that does not mean that it is not dangerous. The proposal will completely invert the relationship between the citizen and the state. As we saw from the statement that preceded the debate, the Government too often forget that they are the servant of the people, not the other way round. The right to my identity is held by me, not by the state. My right to my citizenship is my birthright, not the gift of the Government, and our right as British citizens to our liberty and privacy should not be carelessly thrown away. That is why I ask everyone in the House to support the Lords in their defence of the rights of individual British citizens against unnecessary intrusion into their lives by an over-meddlesome Government, apparently bent on creating a surveillance state.

Mark Fisher: The debate and the disagreement between the other place and our House turn on whether the scheme is compulsory or voluntary. The Home Secretary is right to remind us that we should need primary legislation if the scheme were to be completely compulsory, but the Bill establishes, by the back door, a halfway house to compulsion. Why?
	I suspect that the real reason is that the Home Secretary is not confident. When we eventually reach the stage of introducing primary legislation to make the scheme compulsory, he wants to be able to tell the House and the public, "Sixty per cent. of people in the UK already have an ID card. What are you worried about?" However, the only reason that 60 per cent. of people will have a card will be as a result of this back-door way of compelling them to have a card if they want a passport or a driving licence.
	It is perfectly respectable for the Home Secretary to want a universal card, but as the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said, the proposed scheme will not be effective; the card certainly will not achieve any of the things that the Government hope for it against terrorism, international fraud and so on, unless it is universal. The idea that it could be semi-universal actually denies the whole purpose of an ID card, certainly in terms of its practical effectiveness.
	It is not unreasonable for the Home Secretary to want a universal card, but he does not want to legislate for it now because he knows that he would not get the measure through—[Interruption.] No, he is not legislating for a compulsory card. If he did that now, he knows that the Government would have to pay the full costs for such a card. He could not compel people to have a card and to pay £90 for it. He knows that a compulsory card would have to be financed by the Government and the Chancellor does not want to do that, so we have this rather dishonest and disingenuous halfway scheme.
	If the Government and the Home Secretary were really confident about the proposed card, they would trust the British people. If the Home Secretary feels that he can make an overwhelming case for the importance of an identity card—as he undoubtedly does; I think that he is entirely sincere—he should trust his judgment and make that case to the British people. He should say, "Believe me, we will benefit from the card so volunteer for it", but he cannot introduce the scheme by compulsion. In proceeding by compulsion, he does not trust the British people. He certainly does not trust the people when he proposes this semi, rather false voluntary scheme, which is in effect compulsory.

Kate Hoey: I agree with my hon. Friend's line of thought. Does he agree that many of our constituents, who were deeply opposed to ID cards, gave the Government the benefit of the doubt because they thought that at least the scheme would not be compulsory? Now that a compulsory scheme is being brought in by the back door, does my hon. Friend fear that the next step will be a provision brought in by the back door that people have to carry their identity card?

Mark Fisher: As always, my hon. Friend makes good sense. She goes to the essence of the matter. This is not a proper voluntary scheme; it is compulsory, which is the only way it can work.
	Will the Home Secretary listen to the other place, and to the public, and trust his own judgment? If, as he believes, he can convince the public of the importance of identity cards, he should trust them and let them volunteer for the scheme. The Bill does not trust the public; in effect, it asks them to be compelled to sign up for the cards.

Nicholas Clegg: The simple facts are that the Government say that ID cards will be introduced voluntarily, yet the 80 to 85 per cent. of the British population who possess passports will, if the Bill is passed, have an ID card foisted on them in coming years whether they like it or not.
	By refusing to acknowledge the blindingly obvious—that a measure applied by stealth compulsion on the vast majority of the British people could never be described as voluntary by any known use of the English language—the Government seem to have turned their back on the most elementary terms of rational debate. The Home Secretary seems to inhabit a curious back-to-front world, worthy of C.S. Lewis, where words simply do not mean what they used to—

Tony Baldry: Lewis Carroll.

Nicholas Clegg: I stand corrected. The House must forgive me. As an Alice in Wonderland allusion was used earlier, I deleted mine from my notes and clearly made an error in my replacement.
	As it appears fruitless to continue to ask the Government to use the same dictionary definitions as the rest of the English-speaking world, I shall take a slightly different line of inquiry. If, according to the Government, the scheme will be voluntary, will British citizens be able to withdraw their data from the ID database voluntarily? I know of no database in operation to which individuals can voluntarily enter their data, and from which they are not equally free to remove that information at a time of their own choosing. The Data Protection Act 1998, which sets out the core data protection principles, is clear. It states:
	"It must be recognised that even when consent has been given it will not necessarily endure forever . . . Data controllers should recognise that . . . the individual may be able to withdraw consent."
	Just this once, I shall take at face value the Home Secretary's insistence that the scheme is voluntary. If it is voluntary to enter, based on individual consent, will he confirm that it will also be voluntary to leave it?
	I am also struck by the breakneck urgency with which the Government seem to want to roll out ID cards by surreptitious compulsion. This week, we mark the 10th anniversary of the tragic shootings in Dunblane. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 included a provision for a national firearms database, yet almost 10 years later nothing has happened. This week, Ministers told us that the decade-long delay was due to difficulties with the IT systems required for the firearms register. Apparently, at long last, a pilot register will start in May, with a view to rolling it out in fully fledged form a little later.
	The contrast between the woeful delay in establishing a comparatively small database, agreed 10 years ago after the harrowing loss of life in Dunblane, and the headlong rush towards a vast uncosted, untested and unjustified national ID database speaks volumes.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman refers to the anniversary of Dunblane. Last Saturday was the second anniversary of the Atocha bombings in Madrid. He knows perfectly well that possession of an ID card is mandatory in Spain in order to have a mobile phone, which enabled the Spanish authorities to secure prosecutions.

Nicholas Clegg: The point is, why should the Government be so keen through compulsion to roll out an untested, uncosted and vast ID database and seem incapable for a decade to develop the IT systems for a much smaller one? It hardly confers confidence in the Government's ability to deliver. The Government drag their feet on something that is urgently needed and justified, yet rush ahead on something that is neither needed nor justified.

Martin Linton: The hon. Gentleman has not answered what I may call the Rhondda paradox. If he regards the passport as compulsory, surely a passport is just as much an infringement of civil liberties as the national identity card. If he regards it as voluntary, then there is no problem. What is his answer?

Nicholas Clegg: The key point is the distortion of the English language: saying that the ID card will be introduced voluntarily and yet doing it through compulsion. As to whether the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is a paradox, I leave that for the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) to judge.

Stewart Hosie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Clegg: I should like to make some progress since time is short.
	Ramming through illiberal legislation to no obvious end, while failing to honour pledges made to the families of victims of murder over 10 years ago, reveals the extent to which the Government appear to have lost any sense of proportion or any clear sense of priorities, on this as on so many areas of public policy. I urge those in all parts of the House, and those following this debate in the other place, to reject the Government's motion to disagree with the excellent Lords' amendment.

George Howarth: The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) concluded several points in his speech by saying, "put that to one side", so I intend to do that. But he did make two points that ought to be addressed. First, by virtue of the fact that some people have good reason to travel abroad, and therefore need to have a passport for that purpose, he argued that linking the identity card with the passport was in some way introducing an element of compulsion.
	By even the greatest stretch of the imagination, that argument is based on pure sophistry. The fact is that whether people have good reason or not—

Edward Garnier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

George Howarth: I will give way in a minute if the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to finish the point that I am making. The fact that some people do choose to go abroad for very good reasons—

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

George Howarth: No. I have said that I will give way in a moment.
	The fact that some people do choose to go abroad for very good reasons does not make it any the less a voluntary activity. For the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden to pretend otherwise is to mislead not only the House but those who are following his arguments at home.

Edward Garnier: If the passport system is voluntary and the link between the passport and the giving of information for the national identity register is voluntary, why are the Government proposing to fine people for not providing that information?

George Howarth: For the very obvious reason that, as far as I understand it, they were moving over to biometric-based information for passports anyway, so that process was already in hand and, unrelated to the Bill, that would have happened anyway.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

George Howarth: No, I will not give way to my hon. Friend. There is very little time left and if I give way someone else will not be able to speak.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden raised a second, more general point against identity cards on the grounds that having such a biometric database would effectively open up the way for fraudsters, terrorists and anyone else to access the system.

David Davis: indicated assent.

George Howarth: I see that the right hon. Gentleman nods, so that is part of his argument. But he is urging us to agree with the Lords in an amendment that would effectively create two databases of that kind. In other words, if his argument were correct—I do not necessarily accept it, but in his own terms—he is arguing for two separate opportunities for those breaches of security that he fears. The right hon. Gentleman has not in the least persuaded me with his arguments.
	Finally, it has been well established during the course of this debate, not least by one of my hon. Friends who was responsible for drafting the Labour party manifesto, that it was quite clear what was intended. It was absolutely clear at that time and it has been made even clearer in our subsequent debates on the subject. Frankly, for the House of Lords to reject this one more time would be in breach—

David Davis: rose—

George Howarth: Let me finish this point and I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. It would in fact be in breach of the Salisbury convention and it would be an outrageous abuse of the Lords' powers and privileges.

David Davis: I was not going to make this point, but, since the hon. Gentleman appeared to accuse me of misleading the House, I will. It is clear that the manifesto was intended to mislead. It was intended to be capable of being interpreted in two different ways.

George Howarth: I did not actually accuse the right hon. Gentleman of misleading the House; I accused him of sophistry, and he has compounded that in the intervention that he just made.
	It would be outrageous if the House of Lords were to reject the Government's proposals in the Bill one more time, and frankly, it would be playing into the hands of people such as me who believe that it should be abolished anyway.

Tony Baldry: The right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) knows jolly well and full well that if the Labour manifesto had said in terms that the Government were going to introduce compulsory ID cards, they would have got a raspberry. We all know from our constituency postbags and from conversations on the doorstep that the people of this country are resolutely opposed to compulsory ID cards, and that was why the Labour party manifesto was drafted as it was. No amount of sophistry by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) will change the fact that the manifesto made it very clear that this is intended to be a voluntary measure.
	The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) made an excellent contribution today, as he did on Monday, and he summarised this debate neatly on Monday when he said:
	"If we believe in a voluntary scheme, as the Home Secretary and the manifesto say that we do, there is no way that we can reject the Lords amendments. By rejecting the amendments, the Government will be opting for compulsion."
	What the Government are seeking to do is simply that—opting for compulsion.
	But even today the Home Secretary keeps trying. He abandoned his attempts on Monday. On Monday he tried to persuade the House that it was not compulsion—that somehow it was voluntary as to whether or not we actually went and applied for a passport. So when we decided to go overseas, we got this ludicrous Alice in Wonderland description by the Home Secretary:
	"That is the free will that people may exercise in deciding whether or not they wish to have a passport—[Interruption.] That is the free will over what they can do and how they can operate. That is what the wording means."—[Official Report, 13 March 2006, Vol. 443, c. 1260–1.]
	It is completely crazy.

Peter Bone: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Lords amendments actually do is to bring the Bill in line with what the Labour party manifesto said at the last general election?

Tony Baldry: What the Lords amendments do, and what Opposition Members want to do, is very simple: we want it to be voluntary; those on the Labour Benches want it to be compulsory.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: No.
	As the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said,
	"we continue to believe that the constitutional significance of the Bill is that it adjusts the fundamental relationship between the individual and the State."
	If one is going to adjust the fundamental relationship between the individual and the state—an issue of some importance—one would have thought that that would be clearly set out in the manifesto. If the Government want to introduce compulsory ID cards, let them come to the House with a Bill to do so, and let them not do so through the back door, as they are seeking to do.

Laura Moffatt: I suspect that many of my constituents—I do not choose to speak on behalf of other hon. Members' constituents, as has been done in the House—consider the debate with absolute dismay, as those of us who engaged with our constituents and surveyed and invited comments know. The numbers in my constituency were overwhelmingly in favour of an identity card, and they continue to be so. My constituents will know, having had an opportunity to see the debate, that there is another motive behind the Opposition supporting the other House in its attempt.
	The reason I absolutely depart from some of the spurious arguments on why the Bill should not proceed is that I hear the same Opposition Members who argue for clarity in databases and say that we must have a single database—I cite child protection and many other issues that are before the House—using an entirely separate argument in this case.
	It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [13 February 2006].

Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 16 and 22, but does not insist on its amendment No. 22C and proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof.
	The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 241.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 22 disagreed to.
	Amendments (a) and (b) agreed to.

Terrorism Bill

Lords reasons for insisting on amendments and disagreeing to Commons amendments, considered.
	Lords reasons: 5A, 11A, 31A and 34C
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 5, 11, 31 and 34 and insists on its Amendment 34B but does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 28 and proposes the following Amendment in lieu:—
	No. (a), in page 6, line 24, at end insert—'(8A)   The reference in subsection (8) to something that is likely to be understood as an indirect encouragement to the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences includes anything which is likely to be understood as—
	(a)   the glorification of the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or such offences; and
	(b)   a suggestion that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances.'. —[Mr.Charles Clarke.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we will consider the following: leave out from "following" to the end and insert in lieu amendment (b), in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	'(   )   for the purposes of this section, "indirect encouragement" comprises the making of a statement referring to terrorism in such a way that the listener, reader or viewer would infer that he should emulate it.'.
	Amendment (c), in page 6, line 24, at end insert—
	'(8A)   The reference in subsection (8) to something that is capable of being understood as an indirect encouragement to the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences comprises the making of a statement referring to terrorism in such a way that the listener, reader or viewer would infer that he should emulate it.'.

Charles Clarke: The effect of my motion is simple. It effectively reinstates the wording that this House has previously decided on and rejects the attempts of the other place to remove all references to glorification from the Bill. I can be brief in my remarks because I set out in detail what was wrong with the amendments made by another place when we last discussed the issue on 15 February, and I do not intend to return to that debate.
	I am pleased to say that one objection to those amendments has been removed. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has perhaps realised that his assertion that he was
	"not wholly persuaded by the argument that listening cannot encompass reading."—[Official Report, 15 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 1435.]
	is not really sustainable. I accept that today's amendments from the Opposition parties do at least seek to remedy the weakness that we reflected in the debate that we had last time, but the reference solely to "listener" was not the only thing that was wrong with the amendments.
	The amendments from the other place are defective because instead of containing an exemplary description of what "indirect encouragement" could be, they provide an exhaustive description. In other words, the offence is limited so that it is committed by making available to the public a statement directly encouraging terrorism, or a statement indirectly encouraging it but only by actually describing it in such a way that the listener will infer that he should emulate it. To put that simply, the use of the word "describing" in the Lords amendments means that the Bill would not catch, as the original wording would, glorification, praise or celebration of an act of terrorism that does not actually describe the act. Although the amendments that have now been tabled by the Opposition parties do not rely on the word "describing", the same type of objection still applies to them. The use of the word "comprises" makes them exhaustive.

Dominic Grieve: Instead of using the word "describe" our amendment uses the phrase "referring to terrorism". Can the Home Secretary give me an example of when glorifying terrorism would not have to make a reference to it as an activity?

Charles Clarke: The point that I was making is that the amendment seeks to provide an exhaustive description, which, in my opinion, does not meet the original position put forward by the House. That is precisely why we think that the amendments made in the other place and the amendments tabled by the Opposition should not be accepted here.
	The removal of the reference to glorification, which appears to be the purpose of the amendments made in the other place, appears to be the position of the official Opposition, although it is difficult to be sure. On Tuesday, the official Opposition tabled amendments jointly with the Liberal Democrats that included the word "glorifying", but by yesterday those amendments had been replaced by Conservative amendments that do not make reference to glorification. In the other place, those on the Conservative Front Bench urged their colleagues not to vote against the Commons on those points. No doubt we will receive some clarification on that from the Opposition spokesman.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: I will, but I warn the hon. Gentleman that I will not give way to him again in this speech because he will be making his own speech later in this short debate.

Dominic Grieve: On the whole, I am genuinely trying to see whether I can reach a consensus with the Home Secretary. For that reason, I considered whether it would be possible, within the restricted ambit of the word "comprise", to give the Prime Minister his "glorifying" word, so that his ego would be satisfied, but after I had put the amendment down on the blues— I take responsibility for this—it seemed to me, for the very reason that I gave to the Home Secretary, that I could not think of a single example of when glorification would not involve a reference to terrorism. One cannot glorify something without referring to it. In fact, in lawyers' language, the word was otiose and surplusage and I have no business tabling an amendment that includes something that is completely unnecessary and serves no purpose whatever.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for that explanation. Trying to help the Prime Minister's ego is a new task for Opposition spokespeople. I am delighted that they are diverting their energies to that.
	What of the Liberal Democrats? No one—including them, probably—has any idea where they stand. On Tuesday they were with the Conservatives in accepting "glorifying". On Wednesday they had parted company from the Conservatives, but today they are back with the Conservatives and opposing "glorifying". It is such typical behaviour from the Liberal Democrats that perhaps it is not worth considering.
	The case for including glorification is strong. It is a clear and well understood English word that captures better than any other word some of the conduct that we are trying to deal with in the Bill. As I have said, I imagine that that is why the press have picked up and focused on the word. They know what it means and they know that their readers understand it. It was and, I hope, will be perfectly clear in the Bill for the sake of the courts. It is also a word that the nations of the world were prepared to accept last September when they voted to adopt UN Security Council resolution 1624, which features that word. We should uphold it in Parliament.
	As I have also pointed out before, in light of the attention given to the issue of glorification, if we were now to remove it from the Bill the courts would be fully justified in reaching one obvious conclusion—that Parliament did not intend glorification of terrorism to fall within the scope of the encouragement offence. If any hon. Members doubt that, they might like to read a judgment given by the Lords of Appeal only last week. In the course of his remarks, Lord Bingham of Cornhill said:
	"There is no warrant for treating Parliament as having meant something it did not say".
	That clarification, given in the case Regina on application of Gillan and another v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and another, which was given on 8 March, should cause all of us to be clear that if we take out the word "glorification", there will be understanding of that in the court when the legislation comes through.

William Cash: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke: No, not at the moment.
	The reason the Government believe that we need to deal with glorification in our law is clear. People who glorify terrorism help to create a climate in which terrorism is regarded as acceptable. They help to persuade impressionable members of their audiences that they have a moral duty to kill innocent people in pursuit of whatever ideology they have espoused.
	In recent times, we have seen threats from extremists who claim to represent Islam. Leaders of the Muslim community in the UK and elsewhere have quite properly and very strongly made it clear that such views do not represent true Islam. However, there are, nevertheless, people who may be influenced by those who glorify terrorism and conclude that they have a duty to kill and injure innocent bystanders in the misguided belief that they are bound to do so.
	I should also remind the House that glorification features in the Bill as an example of what is encompassed by the concept of indirect encouragement. It is not self-contained. Glorification as an offence is a subset of indirect encouragement as an offence, and can be committed only if the conditions surrounding the main offence are met. Key among those conditions is the requirement that there must be an intention that others should be induced to commit terrorist offences or subjective recklessness on this point. Glorification without intention of emulation or subjective recklessness cannot constitute an offence.

Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Charles Clarke: No, I will not give way.
	That is a very important safeguard and gives the lie to some of the fanciful claims that have been made about perfectly innocent statements falling foul of this legislation. In part we can have such confidence because of the requirement in the Bill, as this House passed it, for the glorification to relate to conduct that could be emulated in existing circumstances. The amendments from the Opposition parties remove this requirement. I am quite willing to believe that the proposers did not intend to extend the scope of the offence in this undesirable way, but they must speak for themselves, as I am sure the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will do in a moment, and justify their own drafting.
	Another important consideration in this debate is that the creation of an offence of glorification was a specific commitment in the manifesto on which my party fought and won the general election less than a year ago. That goes hand in hand with the question of which House should prevail in any dispute between the two Houses. In Committee and on Report the House voted explicitly on the question of whether this Bill should contain references to glorification. It endorsed the proposition by majorities of 16 and 25 respectively. The Bill then had an unopposed Third Reading and proceeded to another place.
	The other place is a revising Chamber and can invite this House to think again. That is precisely what happened in respect of glorification, and other aspects of the Bill as well. Although I disagreed with the views of another place, I made no complaint as to its conduct up to that point. However, the Bill then returned to this House. On 15 February we had a lengthy debate on the whole issue and voted by a majority of 38 to include glorification in the Bill. We thought again, as the other place requested, and reaffirmed our original decision. At that point, I would have expected the unelected House to concede, and I am disappointed that it did not do so.
	The elected House must prevail and I hope that the motion standing in my name will pass by the largest possible majority, so that it is clear to Members of another place what form Members of the elected House want the legislation to take.

Dominic Grieve: I rise to respond to the Home Secretary and to speak to amendments (b) and (a) to his amendment in lieu.
	The Home Secretary has failed to explain the scope of his proposal, from which flow a large number of the problems with which the House is grappling. He came close to touching on that matter a moment ago, but whenever he comes close to it, he veers off, because an explanation would make nonsense of the Government's entire argument.
	The glorification of terrorism is not being made an offence, thank goodness. If the glorification of terrorism on its own were made an offence, it would mean, as we have said on many occasions, that anybody who celebrates Robin Hood, the peasants revolt or Spartacus would be liable to prosecution. Furthermore, the poor old Taoiseach would be liable to prosecution when he comes over here after celebrating the Easter rising next month in Dublin, which he intends to do. Mercifully, that is not the Government's objective.
	The Government's approach must be based on the Prime Minister's ego, because there is no other rational explanation. Having produced a Bill that contains draconian and powerful provisions to criminalise the indirect encouragement of terrorism—something that we support—the Home Secretary has insisted on including in clause 1(4) a most extraordinary subsection, which suggests that the courts should have particular regard to an example that he is offering: the possibility that glorification falls within the scope of indirect encouragement. At the same time, he has provided the suggestion that members of the public would reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances—I think that the Taoiseach would still be in some difficulty, because quite a few people in Northern Ireland think that any celebration of the Easter rising does exactly that.
	The key point is that every single judge and lawyer to whom I have spoken has highlighted the fact that including such a concept is woolly, opaque and unclear, that the word, "glorify", is not known in our law and that the definition of "glorify" as praise or celebration is very poor. The provision appears to be deliberately aimed at people who might wish to celebrate as part of their culture episodes that would fall within the Government's catch-all definition of terrorism. Above all, it is entirely unnecessary in meeting the Government's objective, and the Home Secretary has said nothing this afternoon to explain why it needs to be included in the Bill.

Julian Lewis: Surely the Home Secretary's claim that judges will take it as a signal if this is cut out has no merit. The judges will know perfectly well that it was cut out because it is unnecessary given that any offence that it would catch would be caught under existing legislation.

Dominic Grieve: There is no doubt that in many respects the Bill is a belt and braces job. As we pointed out to the Government, the truth is that there are perfectly good laws on the statute book that could be used instead of clause 1 or many other clauses. I must admit that I will probably not lose a huge amount of sleep over that, provided that the legislation that we enact is rational, fair, makes sense and, if I may say to the Home Secretary, does not provide a lawyer's field day of casuistic arguments whereby every person who is prosecuted under the glorification clause will take the courts up hill and down dale day after day, and eventually be acquitted, probably on the direction of a judge, because it is all completely unintelligible.

Tobias Ellwood: Does my hon. Friend know whether, following the Danish embassy demonstrations, the police have requested any additional powers that they do not already have?

Dominic Grieve: The police certainly do not need additional powers to deal with a demonstration outside the Danish embassy. I was rather depressed to read today that although some prosecutions have been started, there are problems in identifying some of the people who participated because, of course, nobody was arrested at the time or shortly thereafter. That is a policing matter, but it is not exactly encouraging for those of us who wish to see that sort of behaviour stopped—something that I suspect is true of every single hon. Member.

Andy Burnham: ID cards might have been quite useful.

Dominic Grieve: If nobody knows who is holding up the placard because that person is wearing a dish dash in such a way that all that can be seen is his eyes, what possible use would an identity card be? I am afraid that Government Front Benchers are living in fantasy land as regards terrorist offences, and one need only engage in any sort of debate for the fantasies that are besetting them to become increasingly apparent.
	I say this to the Home Secretary: we have genuinely been trying to see whether we can reach agreement with the Government on the problem that has been posed by the Prime Minister's ego and his slavish adherence to the word "glorification". If one is French, that word does not feature in the debate at all, because the equivalent word is, "apologie", which means "vindication" and is entirely different. For those in the international community, the failure of this House to enact the glorification clause would not be the most seismic event ever, because what they actually want to see is terrorists and those who encourage terrorism brought to justice. That is the matter on which the House should be concentrating.
	Mindful of that, we tried to see whether we could reach some measure of agreement. That is why the amendments that I have tabled, on which, I am glad to say, we will be able to vote before voting on the Home Secretary's proposition, would provide the framework for doing that. The Home Secretary's suggestion that the word "listening" might not encompass viewing or reading struck me as having force. Indeed, if there had been an opportunity for a full debate and vote in the House of Lords, it might have been possible to do something about that there. That classically illustrates how our parliamentary procedure does not work very well. Here we have an opportunity to remedy that minor criticism.
	On top of that, as the Home Secretary will have noted, we have removed the word, "describing", in relation to terrorism because he said that it is possible to glorify terrorism without describing it—I think that it is quite difficult, but I can see that it is a drafting argument—and replaced it with the word, "referring". Can the Home Secretary give me any example of where it would be possible to glorify something without referring to it? I have to say that I do not think that that argument would get very far.

Jeremy Corbyn: I have examined the amendments that the hon. Gentleman tabled. Will he assure us that, if they were carried, became part of the Bill and subsequently law, they could not lead to the same sort of perverse prosecutions, which, as he rightly said earlier, are possible under the glorification clause?

Dominic Grieve: I believe that they will be a great improvement because they focus on what Parliament wants to achieve. My judgment is that Parliament wants to prevent people from indirectly encouraging terrorism by referring to it in such a way that the listener, reader or viewer, who heard, read or saw whatever was said would infer that he should emulate it. I have always accepted that glorification could constitute an offence if a reference to terrorism was made in such a way that a listener, reader or viewer inferred that he should emulate it. Our amendment removes the focus from a concept that should have no part in our law. People should be allowed to celebrate the Easter rising in Dublin without thinking that they are beginning to fall foul of the measure. They celebrate it not only in Dublin, but, for all I know, in west London.

Jeremy Corbyn: And in north London.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman may be right—there could be more such celebrations. In my part of London, celebrations of the Easter rising will undoubtedly take place. The Irish centre is within a few hundred yards of my home.
	Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. If he accepts that indirect encouragement of terrorism should be criminalised, he should have no fear about supporting our amendment. It gets round the problem of the Government's concept.
	The clause that covers proscribing organisations specifically focuses on glorification. Again, the amendment would remove that focus and provide that, if an organisation referred to terrorism in a way that made people infer that they should emulate it, it would fall foul of the proscription provision. However, simply glorifying something would not fall foul of the provision. Some glorification will undoubtedly constitute a reference to behaviour and terrorism in a way that encourages emulation but some will not. The amendment would get rid of the concept of glorification. That is a great improvement.
	I am waiting for the Home Secretary to intervene because no coherent argument has been advanced for the Government's reason for getting so hooked on the inclusion of glorification. I do not know what will happen when the Bill returns to the other place. I note that, for something that has become so intimately bound up with the Prime Minister's ego, when it previously returned to the Lords, only 156 out of 208 Labour peers turned up to support the proposals, even in the Government's great heave to show their mettle. Indeed, some Labour peers supported us.

Charles Clarke: What was the position of Opposition Front Benchers in the Lords in the debate? What were the reasons for their position?

Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary can read what my noble Friend Lord Kingsland said. He took the view that the Government's slavish adherence to glorification was unproductive. He and many other peers on the Front and Back Benches criticised that. However, he said that the Opposition believed that the argument might have been exhausted and they therefore abstained on the vote. So many peers of all parties, including the Labour party, took objection to "glorification" that they defeated the Government despite the Government's turning out their troops in large numbers. That is a telling indication of the independent mindedness of the other place. For that reason, when the Bill returned here, I went to much trouble to ascertain whether there is a way in which we can square the circle.
	At one stage, I drafted an amendment that made use of the words "referring or glorifying". I try to apply a bit of logic to what I do, and I hope that the Home Secretary will forgive me for saying that I could see no basis on which the word "glorifying" in that context would add anything at all to the legislation.
	This is what worries me about the Government's approach. When we read the Bill, we see that the Government have created an offence and then, in a bizarre way, put in a subsection that draws specific attention to an activity that they want to criminalise or condemn. That is very bad law. It would have made sense, had the Government persevered—I am glad that they did not—and said that glorifying terrorism was in itself an offence. Mercifully, they did not go down that road, because enough people pointed out to them that that would have been a completely loopy proposal. What we have here, however, is a remnant of that loopiness. The House should not be in the business of encouraging loopy legislation.

Jim Cousins: I am following the hon. Gentleman's arguments closely. What comfort does he draw from the clear statement by Baroness Scotland, who speaks for the Government on this issue in the other place? When she was asked by my noble Friend Lord Clinton-Davis whether there would be an opportunity to revisit this matter soon, she conceded that there would be "bound to be" such an opportunity. What comfort does the hon. Gentleman draw from that?

Dominic Grieve: A pretty limited amount. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have said that at some point—probably not in the next parliamentary Session, but possibly the one after that—there could be a huge terrorism Bill to bring together all the many terrorism and anti-terrorism Bills that the Government have enacted in the past five years. We seem to move between terrorism Bills and anti-terrorism Bills. We have heard about the possibility of such a Bill in the context of control orders. I hope that, in the course of producing such a Bill, some of the loopier things that we have done will disappear down the plughole. That would include allowing people to be deemed to be members of a proscribed organisation on the basis of the hearsay evidence of a police officer. That measure has never been used since it was introduced. There are an awful lot of added-on bits that we could get rid of. However, we are in the hands of the Government, and I can easily envisage the circumstances in which the Home Secretary—despite having been completely honest when making the point in relation to control orders—could come to the House in 18 months' time and say, "I'm sorry, but there is insufficient parliamentary time. We'll have to put this off for another two years."
	In the meantime, the House should not put on the statute book a measure that is plainly idiotic and wrong. This problem could so easily be cured. If we were to cure it by adopting my amendment, the Bill would have every bit as much bite. It would be able to deal with those whom we wish to prosecute, and it would be able to help to uphold the rule of law without making us a laughing stock for having adopted a concept so opaque that it will be unintelligible when presented in court.
	Hon. Members should also bear in mind the important point that certain law-abiding sections of society feel that they are being targeted by anti-terrorist activity. That is an almost inevitable consequence, but we must keep it in mind. It is my view—I wish it were the Home Secretary's view—that, in using terms such as "glorification" when they are not necessary to achieve our objective, we do ourselves no favours in the battle for hearts and minds that we have to win. That battle will have to go together with everything else that we do, if we are to curb the terrorist threat in this country.
	For those reasons, I invite hon. Members to support our amendments in lieu of the Home Secretary's proposition. If we do not succeed in that regard, my colleagues and I will stand by the Lords amendments and vote against the Home Secretary's proposition.

Nicholas Clegg: In this debate, as in the earlier one on the Identity Cards Bill, the Government have revealed a curious attachment to a single, ill-defined word. The debate on identity cards highlighted their somewhat spectacular redefinition of the word "voluntary". Now we are dealing with a Government—or more precisely a Prime Minister—who appear to be absolutely insistent on another word, "glorification". A petulant insistence on the use of a particular word does not make good law.
	The Government's position is weak on three counts. First, as was said earlier, there is no legally understood definition of the word "glorification". It confuses the law, creating unnecessary imprecision and fluidity. That should not happen to a law that deals with such an important issue as tackling terrorism. The Joint Committee on Human Rights objected to the term on exactly that ground—legal imprecision—and we have still not heard a compelling argument from the Government to refute that view.
	Secondly, the provision adds nothing other than confusion to existing laws that are deployed effectively to tackle many of the problems that it is supposed to address. The arrest yesterday of a number of protesters who used sickening and inflammatory language on their placards when demonstrating against the anti-Islamic cartoons published in Denmark shows that current laws against incitement appear to be working fairly well, although there was some delay in that case.

David Davies: Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that the enormous delay in the effecting of those arrests and the very small number of people who were arrested, given the large number who were protesting, show that action has not been taken as expeditiously as we would expect—and, indeed, as we saw in the case of the counter-demonstrators who were arrested there and then, and in that of the people who protested in support of liberties in the countryside a few months ago outside the House.

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the curious delay in the action taken by the police in arresting the placard protesters, but that is not really relevant to the fact that a law is already available to allow such prosecutions and arrests. There is no obvious loophole that the offence of glorification, even as a subset of indirect encouragement, is required to fill.
	Thirdly and most important, the insistence on the term "glorification" will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. It will lead, in effect, to self-censorship. Its application to any events—I think that this phrase in clause 1 is in parentheses, but it is important none the less—
	"whether in the past, in the future or generally"
	casts the net extremely wide. Muslim communities in particular, who have an understandable interest in debating and speaking out about conflicts on the west bank or in Gaza, or in Iraq, Chechnya or Kashmir, will find themselves especially vulnerable to the loose application of a poorly worded law. Is that really what we want at a time of heightened sensitivity between Muslim and other faiths?
	Of course acts of terrorism, in those places as anywhere else, are abhorrent and must be condemned; but freedom to discuss them should not, surely, be threatened by such loosely worded legislation.

Julian Lewis: Is it not bizarre that while the Home Secretary seems to think that the exclusion of the word "glorification" from the Bill will send a signal to judges—who ought to know better—that the House of Commons thinks that it is okay for people to glorify, he is not worried about the possibility that the inclusion of the word will send the communities to whom the hon. Gentleman referred a misleading signal that they should not dare to mention such subjects in a legitimate debate?

Nicholas Clegg: That is an excellent point. The heavy-handed indifference to the effects on our culture of freedom of speech, and particularly the effects on certain communities, is both cavalier and dangerous. We are simply not going to win the battle against terrorism by driving debate underground. That is the fundamental problem with the Government's approach, and their insistence on the use of the word "glorification".

Evan Harris: My hon. Friend is right to say that the measure will lead to self-censorship. Those of us who have debated the issue at length know that the Government accept that. It is not that they are indifferent; they want us to be censored and self-censored. We see that in many Government proposals. It would be legitimate for the Government to take that view if they had any evidence that sacrificing a freedom would help rather than being counter-productive. There is no such evidence, and we are in danger of losing our freedoms to a Government who do not care about the importance of freedom of expression.

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. They strike at the heart of the imbalance in the Government's approach to tackling terrorism, which is sacrificing our cherished freedoms in the way described.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes, but I am keen to make progress.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, in the circumstances, for his generosity. He will be aware that a significant number of people from Darfur are in this country seeking asylum or exceptional leave to remain. Would it not be an abomination if such people—in expressing support for the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, or strong opposition to the Government of Sudan or the Arab militias—were held up as supporters of terrorism when what they really want is the opportunity to enjoy civil rights and to live in a free Darfur?

Nicholas Clegg: Indeed, and the grotesque effect of poorly drafted legislation that the hon. Gentleman describes is also retrospective. Those who celebrate the Easter uprising or write about the American war of independence could be scooped up by the law in a way that no reasonable person would consider desirable. That is why the amendments before us to clauses 1 and 3, on "indirect encouragement", deserve support from all parts of the House. Their wording is more precise in law, easier to read and more clearly understandable than the convoluted and garbled text on glorification.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Clegg: If I may, I shall now address my remarks to the Home Secretary, who referred to the Opposition parties' attempt to find a way to satisfy the rather petulant insistence on the use of the word "glorification" by qualifying and defining it in a way that neuters its ill-judged effects. It was a serious, concerted and sincere attempt to secure agreement in all parts of the House, and if his only reaction to it is to make crass debating points, it will discourage further attempts in other situations to achieve cross-party consensus.

Charles Clarke: First, the hon. Gentleman should think carefully before describing the United Nations Security Council as petulant in its use of the word "glorification", particularly given that he represents a party that has a strong tradition of internationalism and of support for the UN. Secondly, such efforts to reach agreement involved the two Opposition parties; they did not involve the Government at all.

Nicholas Clegg: With the greatest respect to the Home Secretary, his reaction to our sincere and, as it happens, rather open attempts to reach agreement, as revealed by the amendment, will discourage us the next time that we wish to achieve cross-party agreement on such matters. My recollection is that the UN's use of the word "glorification" was heavily qualified by legal understandings of intention and purposeful activity in the act of glorifying—understandings that have been excluded from this Bill. So the read-across to the UN understanding of "glorification" is not entirely valid.

David Howarth: Surely the Home Secretary's point does not stand up, given that the word "glorification" appears nowhere in the statute book and has never been clarified by the courts. So there is a difference between what happens in diplomatic negotiations and what should be in British law.

Nicholas Clegg: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I think that it was addressed to the Home Secretary, and I look forward to his providing clarification.
	The Government and the Home Secretary claim that they do not intend the term "glorification", as a sub-clause to the definition of "indirect encouragement", to be used in an unduly lax or imprecise manner, so there appears to be agreement on that, at least. If so, the amendments before us deliver precisely what they want. They also include the refinements described by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), which extend the wording to encompass listener, reader or viewer. There is simply no reasonable reason or excuse left for the Government not to abandon the Prime Minister's stubborn, ill-judged obsession with the word "glorification".

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, for obvious reasons. I want the Lords to continue to oppose the inclusion of the word "glorification" on the face of the Bill. I am no more a supporter of criminal terrorist acts than is any other hon. Member, but using such loose wording in legislation could be very dangerous. It could lead to some very dangerous and perverse prosecutions.
	Earlier, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) gave some examples of how that could happen. Over the years, I have been to many meetings when the virtues of the Easter rising have been extolled, and the speeches made at those meetings could well be construed as glorifying what some people would call a terrorist act. In my part of London, Sir Roger Casement is a figure of veneration, rather than of condemnation, and there is no doubt that that is true in many other places. I have also attended celebrations of India's independence day, when speakers have extolled the virtue of the various figures who played a part in bringing about that independence. In certain circumstances, I am sure that those speakers could be prosecuted under the Bill.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that celebrations of certain parts of Irish history could include readings from the poetry of W.B. Yeats, which could also be caught by the definition in the Bill?

Jeremy Corbyn: I always read Yeats' great poetry to myself, quietly at home, and never in public. However, I take the point: plenty of writings extol things that could be caught by the Bill. Indeed, history is full of accounts of the dreadful things done by British forces abroad—such as massacres in India and elsewhere—that I would argue could be interpreted as terrorist acts. I am not in favour of prosecuting anyone for talking about such matters, but that is the danger of the Bill.
	The Home Secretary said that the leaders of the Muslim community in this country have condemned the language used in the demonstration outside the Danish embassy. That is true, but as far as I know, they have not supported the use of the word "glorification" in the Bill, because they see the dangers that would ensue. It does not take a huge imagination to work out that utterly ridiculous and perverse prosecutions could be brought under the Bill. However, it is also possible that a very serious prosecution could be brought—for example, in respect of what an imam might have said after Friday prayers. The matter would be dragged through the courts for months. The prosecution case might collapse, or the imam might be declared innocent, but a cause célèbre and a martyr will have been created in the meantime, and community relations will have been damaged. That is the danger of having such loose wording in the Bill.

Graham Stuart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House might be being too kind to the Government by assuming that they have a rationale for the use of the word "glorification" in the Bill? Is it not possible that the Government's aim has been to create an entirely artificial division in the mind of the public? The argument makes the Government appear to be strong on terrorism, while leaving everyone else who oppose the Government—on the Conservative, Liberal Democrat or even Labour Benches—looking somehow weak on the matter. Does he agree that this dangerous legislation could have been introduced for such cynical reasons?

Jeremy Corbyn: No. I always want to be kind to the Government. I am sure that they would not want to promote any such cynical thoughts, although I admit that cynicism sometimes does creep into politics.
	A person who plants a bomb that kills people is committing a criminal act, and I remind the House that 12 people from my borough were killed on 7 July last year. Obviously, those responsible should be prosecuted, as it was a criminal act. We already have a law under which such people can be prosecuted for such acts, but I do not understand how loose wording such as "glorification" can help anything. I believe that the use of that word is damaging, and that the perverse prosecutions that I mentioned earlier could create a dangerous situation in community relations.

Jim Cousins: Does my hon. Friend not see that the problem with which the House is now grappling is not that there will be more than a maximum of one prosecution using this concept of glorification—because it will fail at the first hurdle—but rather that the impact of the concept on what I might call the "Holbeck Faults" of our society might be very grave indeed?

Jeremy Corbyn: Absolutely. The point is that this creates an atmosphere that becomes perverse and dangerous. As has been indicated in earlier debates, my constituency, like many other London constituencies has been the home of many people who were exiled leaders of revolutionary organisations in other countries. We had the leadership of the African National Congress, the SWAPO leadership, people from the Congress party in India and many others who have been condemned for terrorism. In public meetings from time immemorial through to the present, they would make speeches about liberation struggles in other parts of the world that could be construed as glorifying terrorism. I would probably argue that that was not the case, but as has been said, it only takes the failure of one prosecution to damage the law and create martyrs.
	The Bill creates an atmosphere in which people feel constrained from speaking out or discussing anything in a rational, political way. It is important that we defend the right to free speech and to discuss history. It is important for teachers and professors to deal in detail with what may or may not have happened in a historical context. Free speech is a precious and important thing.

David Heath: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He made the point that the person who placed the bomb that affected his constituents was committing a criminal offence. I think that he will agree with me that the person who caused that bomb to be placed should be committing a criminal offence. That is the case because we have the incitement laws. Does he understand why the incitement laws are suddenly felt to be entirely inadequate for the purpose for which they were passed, and why they are not used to prosecute people who should be prosecuted?

Jeremy Corbyn: I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is clear that placing the bombs on the bus and the train, which killed my constituents and many others, was an illegal, criminal act. The same is true of supplying the material and planning the attack. I fail to understand how putting the word "glorification" on the face of the Bill makes anybody more secure. I think that in reality it creates a more divided community. The police say privately that what is important for security is co-operation between communities. If we reduce that co-operation by criminalising sections of the community, we are on a slippery slope.

Mark Fisher: To pursue the intervention by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), does my hon. Friend understand any way in which the word "glorification" will strengthen the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described? As far as I can see, it will do nothing of the sort. It does not add to the situation at all. As my hon. Friend suggested, it can only lead to fraught and unhelpful situations.

Jeremy Corbyn: There is a feeling in Government—it is the same in all Governments—that when something awful happens, they have to be seen to be doing something. The only thing Governments can do, apart from making statements and providing resources for the forces of law and order, is to pass new legislation. So that is what they do, and I suspect, to some extent, that is what we are doing here today. I hope that the Lords stick with it on the issue of glorification. I think that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) wants to intervene, or maybe he is just waving at me. I am not sure—[Interruption.] Oh, he is just drowning! I give way to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris).

Evan Harris: In partial, but only partial, defence of the Government's intention, it is fair to point out that while terrorist acts and incitement offences occur, the convention against terrorism requires the Government to introduce a measure against indirect encouragement or incitement, which is what the Bill does. However, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out, the convention does not require the inclusion of the word "glorification" for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman and other Members have given, which is that it is too vague and too broad.

Jeremy Corbyn: I can but agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the wording is vague and too broad, we will end up with a dangerous situation.
	We are all concerned about many issues in the UK and around the world. We want an inclusive society, where people feel able to express their political point of view and to represent causes all over the world. The Bill has international reach; indeed, it has global, even intergalactic, reach—it knows no limit. So let us suppose that we invited elected Members of the Palestinian Authority to address a meeting in the House, as many of us have done over the years. Their speeches describing the situation could be construed as glorifying terrorism. I do not necessarily think that would be the case, but it could happen.
	We are moving into dangerous, uncharted waters with the Bill. Perverse prosecutions will bring about serious breakdowns in community relations, and I urge the Government to think carefully and seriously about such a vague and sloppy word as "glorification", when a much closer definition would meet the need for decency and security and deal with people who commit criminal acts, because that is what we are talking about.

William Cash: I have been listening to the debate for some time, and if there has been any serious examination of the meaning of the word "glorification" it has escaped my notice. One might be forgiven for assuming that there was no reference to its interpretation in the Bill.
	In earlier debates on the measure, I pointed out that I thought it would be extremely difficult for courts to construe a meaning. The definition in clause 20 notes that glorification
	"includes any form of praise or celebration".

Dominic Grieve: Will my hon. Friend give way?

William Cash: I think not, and that is not because I suspect that my hon. Friend will raise a point that I had not thought of.
	With respect to the context of the use of the word "glorification", I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's view that the Prime Minister is on a bit of an ego trip. The Prime Minister has stuck closely to the assumption that the word has to remain in the Bill. The word is defined in various dictionaries and that, after all, is the only basis on which the courts can make a construction.
	For people who are concerned about the connection between glorification and terrorism in the Islamic context, the rather dangerous first definition—from the point of view that things could spin out of control—is that the word means to praise and worship God. Those who know and understand something about the meaning of Islam and the proper reverence attached to the word "Allah" will realise that it could mean that anybody who was found to have glorified God in that context would automatically find a conflation between God on the one hand and terrorism on the other. That is an extremely difficult area.
	I notice that the Home Secretary is chuntering and saying "Ridiculous". If he thinks that that was ridiculous, he should look at the dictionary. The courts will have to construe those words and that was the first definition given.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is making an important point. As he is showing, one of the things that the Home Secretary has done is to give constant illustrative definitions but no comprehensive definitions, so the scope is wide. As my hon. Friend says, glorification could be much more than praise and celebration, even though praise and celebration are singled out in the Bill. Does he agree that that is part of the mischief of passing such opaque legislation? It leaves people in uncertainty, which is a bad principle on which to legislate.

William Cash: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and I go further and say that the second definition that is given is to
	"reveal the glory of God by one's actions".
	Even the Home Secretary, even the Prime Minister, cannot ignore the definitions that are given, for example, in the "Oxford dictionary". When we are dealing with words, as Lewis Carroll said, words mean what we choose them to mean.
	"The question is"
	who is
	"to be master—that's all."
	In that context, we know from the "Parkinson" interview where the Prime Minister puts himself in this case. He raises his eyes to heaven; he invokes God for guidance. So we are moving into very deep water here.
	My next point relates to the alternative definition that is given, which is to
	"describe or represent as admirable, especially unjustifiably".
	If that is the definition that the Government want—I am amazed that they have not attempted to define the word "glorification" more precisely—they could have chosen that definition, which might have helped them out of some of the difficulties, but no, they insist that the only definition that they want is the one that I started off with, which merely includes any form of praise or celebration. They have moved into dangerous territory; they are actually inviting those of the Islamic fundamentalist disposition to make the worst of this when it crops up. The courts will be forced into a definition. The Government are negligent in not having provided a more precise definition. If the Government cannot come up with a precise definition, they should abandon the words and go back to the wording that has been suggested by the Conservative Front Bench.
	It is perfectly simple. The Home Secretary is in a trap—the trap that has been laid for him unwittingly by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should take note of what is being said. I have no doubt that, as a result of the lack of a definition, the Bill is seriously defective and the Lords have every right to reject the amendment if a majority in the House sends it back to them.

David Davies: I shall try to be briefer than some of the speakers this afternoon, but we should think carefully before we pass a clause that is so open to misinterpretation, as hon. Members have pointed out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, anyone celebrating the Easter rising could be subject to prosecution under the terms of this clause. Slightly closer to home and within the United Kingdom, a few years ago in Cardiff a pub opened called "The Càyo Arms", named after the leader of the Free Wales Army; I presume that under the scope of the clause, anyone who was inside, celebrating the action of the Free Wales Army, would also be subject to prosecution.

John Bercow: Nor is the list as narrow as some might suppose. Would my hon. Friend not accept that it is not simply a question of forming a view and commenting on particular events? People could be trapped under the provision if they were, for example, to express admiration or general support for the activities of the Karen National Liberation Army in perfectly properly resisting the oppressive state apparatus in Burma.

David Davies: My hon. Friend makes an important point and he is renowned for his interest in human rights. But I think that we have a right to ask ourselves how confident we can be that a measure that will impinge on freedom of speech should be passed by a Government who have probably lost the confidence of members of the public. Two days before the Queen's Speech in 2004, which was when this Bill was first mooted, the front page of the Daily Mail contained a headline about a hijack attempt on Canary Wharf by al-Qaeda operatives. I have looked in vain ever since for any evidence of arrests or of people being charged, but there has been absolutely none.
	I suggest to the Home Secretary that that article was deliberately placed into the Daily Mail before the Queen's Speech in a shoddy attempt to stoke up public opinion to get people to support this measure in the first place. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary laughs—so perhaps when he sums up, he will tell us whether or not the security services were briefed to talk to the Daily Mail. If the security services were briefed to talk to the Daily Mail, perhaps the Home Secretary could tell us why. If they were not briefed to do so, perhaps he could tell us why he did not order the same sort of investigation to hunt down the mole in MI5 or MI6 who spoke to the Daily Mail in exactly the same way as the Government shamefully hunted down—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [15 February 2006].
	Amendment proposed: (b), in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	'(   )   for the purposes of this section, "indirect encouragement" comprises the making of a statement referring to terrorism in such a way that the listener, reader or viewer would infer that he should emulate it.'.—[Mr. Grieve.]
	The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 298.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment disagreed to
	Question put, That the motion be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 237.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Lords amendments to be considered tomorrow.

Damian Green: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have the Government given you, and through you the House, any explanation of their extraordinary behaviour in pulling the business at about two hours' notice? Have the Government Whips had such a bad week that they need to go home early to lie down? It is virtually unprecedented in my experience of the House that an important Bill coming to its final stages is suddenly hoicked from the Order Paper for no reason, and the Government do not have the courtesy to give the House an explanation.

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) makes a point that I made a couple of hours ago. May I add to that—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a point of order to the Chair.

David Heath: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has there been any indication from the Leader of the House that he anticipates making another business statement on Monday in order to correct the incorrect business statement that he made earlier today, which made no reference to further consideration of the Bill at any time during the next couple of weeks?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have received no such indication from the Leader of the House. Returning to the original point of order, it is, of course, the prerogative and responsibility of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill or motion to decide whether to proceed. I am not aware of any other explanation, but I have no doubt that the Bill will return at a later stage.

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Friday 3 March I raised a point of order with the Second Deputy Chairman in relation to an incident that took place at Nottingham East Midlands airport on 4 March. In response, the Second Deputy Chairman quite properly said that that was not a matter for him, but that he felt sure that the relevant Minister, namely one from the Department for Transport, would read what was said and would no doubt respond. I raised that point of order two weeks ago, and I have heard nothing since then, apart from noisy night flights out of that airport. Is there any way in which you can encourage the Minister with responsibility for aviation or one of the more senior Ministers in that Department to apply their mind to what is a serious problem and have the courtesy to this House and to a MP to respond?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I can only repeat to the hon. and learned Gentleman what my colleague, the Second Deputy Chairman, has already said—there is nothing that I can do. However, he may want to consider another way of getting a response to his question other than a point of order.

WATER SHORTAGES (WEST SUSSEX)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Claire Ward.]

Nick Herbert: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise what is becoming one of the most serious issues for local people in West Sussex, which is the shortage of water. The past two years have been the driest period in the south-east since 1922, surpassing even the most serious post-war drought, which many of us remember, between 1974 and 1976. Many parts of the south-east have experienced less than three quarters of their long-term average rainfall in that period, and last winter was the second driest in Sussex since 1904. Only four of the past 16 months have seen rainfall reach average levels, and research commissioned by the south-east counties leaders group in 2004 found that less than half of the rainfall experienced in the region recharges water resources, which means that the south-east has less water per head than Syria.
	Current water levels continue to cause concern. Despite some rainfall last month, river levels in West Sussex are at their lowest level for three decades— for example, the Ouse was flowing at only 41 per cent. of its long-term average last month. Almost 70 per cent. of water supplies in the south-east come from underground, so it is particularly worrying that groundwater levels are still below the long-term average for this month. On 9 March, the Bewl reservoir, which serves 400,000 people in Kent and East Sussex, was only 53 per cent. full, which is the lowest level that the reservoir has reached at this time of the year since it was built in 1974—for comparison's sake, the average level for this time of year is 84 per cent.

Nicholas Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important Adjournment debate. He is aware, because he is coming to an infrastructure seminar tomorrow in East Grinstead in my constituency, that the Weirwood reservoir is even lower than Bewl. Is he aware that the Government have imposed on West Sussex county council a target to build 4,000 new houses at East Grinstead and that the requirement for extra water for those houses will be 6.75 million litres a day? Where does he think that that water will come from, and does he agree that that is not sustainable development?

Nick Herbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with everything that he says. That is indeed the worry—where will the water come from in order to support the additional housing demand? I pay tribute to him for holding his infrastructure seminar tomorrow, at which leaders of the county councils and others will discuss the problem of the infrastructure deficit. That was also addressed by the private Member's Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), which West Sussex Members were delighted to support and which suggested that there should be a proper audit of the infrastructure requirements of a development before it goes ahead.
	The Weirwood reservoir is at about half its normal level, and the Environment Agency has confirmed that only one of the seven reservoirs serving the southern region is at normal levels for this time of year. That has a serious impact in several ways. First, it affects farming. The south-east is one of England's most important regions for arable farming and horticulture, which takes place in the south of my constituency. The drought is already causing concern as the key growing season looms. The Environment Agency's report, "Drought Prospects", published last month, set out three possible scenarios for the summer: average rainfall for February to April, 80 per cent. of the average during that period, or 60 per cent. of the average. The report stated that if the south-east were to receive only 60 per cent. of the average for this time of year,
	"Farmers would find groundwater and surface water sources to be very unreliable and could expect restrictions on spray irrigation".
	That will have a direct impact on the supplies of the food that they produce and on their profitability, which is already being challenged.
	Secondly, there is an environmental impact, including on local wildlife. Some of the finest wetland nature reserves in England are located in the south-east, such as Pulborough Brooks in my constituency. I suspect that the Minister may know about that. The ground is increasingly dry for the hundreds of pairs of lapwings and redshanks that traditionally breed in the south-east, and as flood plains dry out there are ever fewer places where these birds can breed and nest. At Pulborough Brooks reserve, just one pair of lapwings produced chicks last year, compared with 10 pairs in a normal year. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds believes that that is because of the drought.
	In terms of the prospect now confronting us, the Environment Agency has warned that water companies in the south-east, such as Southern Water, which largely serves my constituency, will need to do several things, all of which I wish to discuss. They include maintaining hosepipe bans, educating the public further about the severity of the drought, increased leakage control, and ensuring that drought plans are taken in good time. What worried me, and was one of the reasons why I called the debate, was the Environment Agency's comment that
	"Any delay increases the risk later in the year of extreme steps to manage public water supply, such as the introduction of standpipes and rota cuts".
	That public statement by the Environment Agency has begun to worry people who already face hosepipe bans in their households. I understand from a meeting that I had with Southern Water this week that it hopes that standpipes will not have to be introduced. However, the fact that the agency has warned of that underlines the need for further measures to deal with the problem.
	A hosepipe ban has already been in place in West Sussex for eight months. It is extraordinary to impose a hosepipe ban during the winter months. The current hosepipe bans affect more than 3.4 million people in the whole of the south-east. Following Thames Water's announcement of a hosepipe ban, that extension will affect another 3.5 million people. Folkestone and Dover Water has applied for water scarcity status and has become the first water company to be successful in being given the go-ahead to install compulsory water meters, under the Water Industry Act 1999. I should like to explore the extent to which the Government are willing to see a further use of water meters and what impact they think that that will have on consumption and on some of the poorer households who may be adversely affected if there is a further move towards water metering.
	I want to deal specifically with the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) raised about population growth in the south-east.

Tim Loughton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. People watching it may be confused because, only a few years ago, there were television images of villages that were almost washed away. Barrels from the brewery in Lewes in another part of Sussex were seen floating down the river and the city of Chichester was severely damaged. However, we have long-term water shortage problems in the south-east, which will be compounded for reasons that my hon. Friend will outline. Does he believe that there is any scope for designation as an area of water shortage, as is possible under the Water Industry Act 1999, to draw attention to our long-term problems?

Nick Herbert: I should like to ask the Minister precisely that question. Perhaps such a measure is necessary but we need to understand its implications for local people and the move to compulsory water metering.
	A big population increase is projected in the south-east. That is set to happen against a background in which, nationally, household water use has increased by more than half since 1971. Just over 8 million people currently live in the south-east but that population is projected to grow by more than 1 million in the next two decades. The South East England regional assembly, at the behest of the Deputy Prime Minister, said that it wants an additional 578,000 homes built in the next 20 years. That is an annual average of 28,900 across the south-east. Fifty-eight thousand homes will be located in West Sussex—a build rate of 2,900 a year. Yesterday, a report in The Daily Telegraph highlighted Government projections and estimated that, on top of those figures, up to 5 million new homes will be needed in England in the next 20 years. Ironically, a subsequent report in The Daily Telegraph ran a feature on the hosepipe bans and water shortages in the south-east. There is a clear connection between the increase in population, the projected increase in house building and the current scarcity of water. It is important that all concerned take that connection on board and plan properly for it.
	The Water Resources in the South East group concluded in September 2004 that
	"increased demand from new development in the South East can only be accommodated through a combination of demand and supply side activities."
	That was based on a forecast that, by 2025, more than half the households in the south-east would be on meters. The group states that, unless that takes place, we will not be in balance in 20 years. It is therefore important for the additional number of households to be on meters. The question is whether we will hit the target.
	Last year, WaterVoice, which is now the Consumer Council for Water, stated:
	"Adequate water and sewerage services are a fundamental requirement and development/growth cannot proceed until robust water and sewerage infrastructures are in place to meet the demands placed on them . . . Water resources in the South East are already closely balanced with current customer demand. Any significant increase in population, as forecast in the plan"—
	the housing plan, to which I referred—
	"will place an unsustainable pressure on existing water resources. Improving water efficiency and minimising leakage are essential components of the plan . . . The intention to promote water efficiency in new homes through the planning process is supported but it remains unclear how existing housing stock can be made more water efficient without some form of financial incentive."
	The current planning, which the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham presented tried to tackle, puts water companies under a statutory duty to provide the water only when planning permission is granted for house building. It does not provide for any formal water consultation process to involve water companies in the planning system. When we are considering house building on the scale suggested in the south-east, such formal consultation would be a good idea.
	The Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons concluded last year:
	"No proposals to further increase housing supply should be taken forward without ensuring that there is a strong evidence base to support them."
	I have mentioned the Infrastructure Audit (Housing Development) Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and given a First Reading in the House. Last year, I also asked the Deputy Prime Minister to what extent he had assessed the infrastructure improvements that would be necessary to meet the house building targets in the south-east. I received a reply that simply stated that the Government were committed to "exploring" the infrastructure needs. Given the serious water shortage in the south-east, exploring is not going to be good enough.
	At Prime Minister's questions two weeks ago, I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he accepted that the Government had a responsibility to deal with the infrastructure deficit before putting in place the additional homes in the south-east. He replied that
	"that is what we are doing."—[Official Report, 1 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 253.]
	I want to be sure that that is the case in regard to water, roads, health care and so on—all of which are under great pressure in West Sussex. I remain to be convinced—indeed, I am far from convinced—that that infrastructure investment is going ahead before the housing programme begins.
	There is also a possibility of an extension to the proposed hosepipe ban, which would involve a ban on non-essential use. That idea has been floated in the local media, and I understand from meetings with Southern Water that there is every likelihood that such a ban will be introduced in its part of West Sussex shortly. A non-essential use ban would mean not only that people could not use a hosepipe to wash their car, but that they would not be able to wash their car at all. Under such a ban, people could not even wash their car using a bucket and a sponge. As the public become increasingly aware of the severity of these measures—which will be put in place at the beginning, not the end, of the summer—they will quite rightly make further demands to find out what is being done to ensure that a proper water supply is available.
	I understand that the water companies plan on the basis that there will be a drought once every 10 years, and that measures such as those bans are therefore acceptable. I believe that that planning scenario should be revisited. It is unacceptable to work on the assumption that there will be hosepipe bans once every 10 years. That is not the case in other parts of the world, and I do not see why people living in the south-east—and in West Sussex in particular—should have to live under that presumption.
	There are two ways of dealing with this situation. First, there should be an increase in supply. Local people will want to know what the water companies are doing about investing in new reservoirs, for example. Secondly, and more contentiously, we could moderate demand by introducing water meters. I fully accept that there is a case for that, but if metering is to be extended, the water companies must address their leakage problems first, in order to maintain public confidence in their actions. If the public were being asked to pay the price of the shortages through water metering, but the water companies were not meeting their responsibility to deal with leaks, that could lead to a breakdown in relations between the water companies and the public. I am sure that the water companies are alive to that risk.
	Water meters are now on the agenda, following the application for water scarcity status in Folkestone by Folkestone and Dover Water. The number of metered households in the country has increased, and more than a fifth of properties in Sussex now have metered water. That is partly as a result of meters being installed automatically in new homes. Also, as someone who is about to purchase a new home in West Sussex, I have discovered that simply transferring ownership within the county means that I shall have to install a water meter. People can also volunteer to have a water meter. I appreciate that it is intended to increase the numbers of homes with water meters by those means, and Southern Water aims to increase the take-up to 44 per cent. by 2010. However, that is some way short of the target that will be necessary to ensure that we have adequate demand management measures, in concert with supply, to supply the additional housing over the same period.
	It is clear that water metering has a beneficial impact. Consumers cut their consumption by some 10 per cent. on average when meters are installed. It is significant that the Isle of Wight, where more than 90 per cent. of the 65,000 homes are metered, has not had a hosepipe ban since 1976. One has now been introduced, but much later than the bans introduced in other parts of the south-east. That suggests that metering is a successful part of the formula for dealing with that problem, but it is only a part.
	On international comparisons, as so often in relation to environmental matters, we are behind many of our peer group countries. There is 100 per cent. water metering for the supply to the six Scandinavian cities of Oslo, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. There is 100 per cent. water metering in urban authorities in Australia and very high levels of water metering in the Netherlands. As politicians, we have to decide the extent to which we recognise our responsibilities to take decisions that might be unpopular but are in the interests of the environment.
	It has also been suggested that we should have a national grid for water. However, it would be prohibitively expensive. Because 1 cu m of water weighs a tonne, it would require enormous amounts of energy to pump the water from the north of England to the south. The water would also have to be clean. It would not be possible to pump untreated water and put it into rivers, because of the environmental impact of shifting wildlife from one part of the country to the other. It is important that if such measures are to be put aside, the Government and the water companies tell us precisely what will happen to ensure that every household has a water supply in parts of the country such as West Sussex, especially given the huge increase in housing that is expected. We may disagree about the merits of that housing and its location, but it is perfectly reasonable of local people to request that it should be accompanied by an adequate water supply. There is plainly insufficient water at present, which undermines public confidence that supplies will be available in the future.
	I am grateful to the Minister for replying to the debate and I hope that he will be able to offer some reassurance to our constituents, who are genuinely concerned about this matter.

Laura Moffatt: I offer my sincere thanks to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) for allowing me to contribute to his Adjournment debate on this important issue. Members who represent West Sussex are not divided politically about the difficulties that we face, although we might not agree on how to tackle the problem and the factors that contribute to the water shortage in the area.
	I note from parliamentary questions that many Members with constituencies in West Sussex have taken a deep interest in the problem and have been keen to ensure that Ministers are pressed on it. Owing to the very dry periods that we have experienced lately, our area is being described as semi-arid, which may shock our constituents but is entirely accurate.
	We should recognise, however, that such periods are cyclical, occurring—as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs pointed out—every 10 years. We need a measured and reasonable response to what is a sad state of affairs, especially in our part of the world. Our reservoirs present a picture that makes us all feel incredibly concerned.

Nicholas Soames: The hon. Lady is right to say that this is not a political matter. She is also right to say that there is a cyclical element in climate changes of this sort. Nevertheless, the cyclical element has occurred at a time when the Government have imposed massive house building targets on West Sussex. In mid-Sussex alone, an infrastructure deficit of over £1 billion has been necessary to cope with the projected new building. How does the hon. Lady think the Government will deal with that?

Laura Moffatt: I was about to say that this is probably where the divide occurs. I do not consider it responsible to say that because of water shortages we should not have the houses that our area needs so desperately. The hon. Gentleman, who knows the constituency of Crawley extremely well, is aware of the pressure for new housing. I believe that we can accommodate the building of houses for people in desperate need, while developing a sense of self-awareness among those who are lucky enough to have homes already, with access to fresh potable water.
	A series of parliamentary questions and letters to, in particular, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have asked what is considered when new housing is proposed. It is important to ensure that a precious resource is taken properly into account before any new building takes place. I have found the advice I have received extremely useful, and I make sure that my constituents receive it as well.
	I was interested by the hon. Gentleman's proposition that the water company should be a statutory consultee. I have spent quite a bit of time with the water companies, particularly South East Water. I was impressed by the work that South East Water is doing to reduce leakage, improve supply and ensure that people think carefully about how they use their precious resource, but I do not think that making the company a statutory consultee is the answer. The water company's business is to supply water, and I suspect that no matter what question it is asked, it will say, "We can supply water." The guidance from the ODPM is therefore an important element in ensuring that that is so. I do, however, firmly believe that the water companies are playing a significant role, as are local authorities, in making us understand our responsibility as tenants and home owners in West Sussex.
	Interesting measures have been taken in Crawley to ensure that we conserve our precious water supplies. Recently, my constituents were able to buy water butts for their gardens at an incredibly low price, subsidised by the local authority. It understood that people are keen to take such steps and the service was very heavily used. In fact, we had a really jolly weekend. Some of the people who came to get a water butt decided to come back for a second one when they discovered another drainpipe on their roof that could enable them to save even more water. There was also an education centre, which gave advice on saving water. We know that we could accommodate more house building if more people took such steps. Putting just one brick or "hippo" in our cisterns can enable others to access fresh water. We should share much of that advice.

Nicholas Soames: This debate is of course about water, and the hon. Lady is rightly telling us about the excellent and admirable things that Crawley borough council is doing. I do not want to interrupt this cosy consensus, but the problem is not just water. In fact, as she rightly says, water can be produced and it can be pumped from Wales, Scotland or anywhere. The problem is the overall infrastructure package, which includes not just water, but sewerage, roads and railways. All of that requires enormous investment if Crawley or anywhere else in West Sussex is to cope with the demands being imposed, which will come under the heading of sustainable development.

Laura Moffatt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I do not disagree one bit. I am simply trying to ensure that water is included in that very important overall infrastructure package, because it is sometimes forgotten about.
	Many steps can be taken. Personal responsibility should extend not only to our own homes—we should also take steps to help others. Self-awareness and self-promotion for home owners is very important, and we can create a much better infrastructure if we make sure that people understand that water is part of it.
	There have been some fantastic campaigns, such as Water Wise. South-east water companies have taken a very active role, alongside Government officials, in examining all aspects of water supply. Importantly, a statutory duty will be placed on the Environment Agency to ensure that it properly examines the water supply in a particular area. That follows on from the Water Act 2003, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for helping me to understand how that duty will impact on future consideration of water supply.
	So much is being done on this crucial issue. We should not alarm people to the point where they feel that all future house building should be rejected because of possible water shortages. We should ensure that we take a responsible attitude to this issue, which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs certainly did in his speech. Labour Members will want to ensure that water metering does not result in water being a scarce resource for low-income families. My son is an environmental health officer and his entire reason for becoming one was to help ensure that people have decent living conditions. He would be absolutely horrified if we tried to impose water metering on everyone, although it is a good idea for many. People who have meters find it very upsetting to watch others on relatively high incomes wash their cars and then aim the hosepipe down the drain when they have lunch.
	Finally, we can tackle the problem in other ways. A young man in Crawley, who was educated in Crawley school, has developed a no-water car-cleaning product. I hope that such technologies will help to ensure that we in West Sussex keep our precious resource of water.

Justine Greening: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on securing this very important debate. I also want to thank the Minister for allowing me to speak at short notice.
	We have had problems in Roehampton in my constituency that tie in with what has been said already in the debate. I want to give a view of the problem as it appears in a part of Greater London that is well developed and increasingly heavily populated. About two weeks ago, Thames Water decided to reduce the water pressure at the Putney pumping station, partly as a result of the increasing population in Wimbledon. There has also been a big problem with leaks locally, with two having to be fixed in my road in the past month.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, it is incumbent on water companies to tackle leakages when they happen, but reducing the pressure at Putney pumping station has had a negative impact on some of my most disadvantaged constituents living on the Alton estate. They occupy very high council tower blocks, but the lower pressure means that the highest flats cannot get water pumped up to them.
	As a result, Thames Water has proposed to install what it calls a water booster pump in each of the tower blocks, at a cost that I believe will be in the region of £50,000. The council is being asked to meet that cost, but the flats' leaseholders will also have to pay their share. Some 300 people in my constituency have received bills of between £800 and £2,000, with the money going to pay for the water booster pumps in their tower blocks. Other taxpayers—myself included—are also contributing to that payment, as we are paying for the council tenants' contribution.
	I am especially worried about this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, the water companies must be careful to protect their relationship with their customers. The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) said that water companies will never say that they cannot supply water, but I wish that she was right. In Roehampton and Putney, we are facing the problem that the water companies are saying exactly that—that they cannot supply water to some homes. Ironically, it is people on lower incomes who live in affordable housing or council stock—they may have managed to buy their own council property several years ago—who now have to pay huge bills of up to £2,000. I have written to Thames Water and to Ofwat about the problem, but unsustainable development in the south-east or West Sussex will ensure that the constituents of other hon. Members soon face problems similar to those that my constituents face. It is often the people who can least afford to pay who are being charged in the way that I have described.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to give advice or guidance to Ofwat and the water companies about the appropriateness of their behaviour, given that Thames Water made an after-tax profit last year of nearly £200 million. A great deal of that profit is distributed to shareholders, but the company would do better to invest a little more in local pipe infrastructures before it asks tenants to pay for its inadequacies.

Elliot Morley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on securing this debate and raising a series of important issues in relation to water supply. Water supply, which is heavily regulated, is a crucial part of the infrastructure of this country. We have had some bad droughts, and the hon. Gentleman referred to the last serious one, which affected Yorkshire Water badly. It was at the time when people were being urged to shower with a friend and take similar steps. I do not think we are quite in that situation yet.
	Measures have been introduced, particularly since the water summit of 1997, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The 1999 legislation and the Water Act 2003 were designed to make sure that we do not have the major problems of severe water shortages that we have had in the past. That is not to say that we should be complacent. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have had some of the lowest rainfalls since 1921 in the south-east of England and we are facing what may be one of the worst droughts for nearly 100 years. There are serious issues, and water companies have a duty to put drought plans in place—I shall say a few words about those—and they have been responding responsibly.
	I want to touch upon a point raised by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt)—that of development. It is true that for development, it is necessary to have the infrastructure to go with it. I shall concentrate on water tonight, but that is not to say that I do not recognise that there are other issues, such as transport, roads, schools, and hospitals, that go with new development. They are addressed in the structural plans. However, whatever the argument about numbers, it is clear that there is an overwhelming need for more homes, particularly in the south-east. That desire for more homes, which is felt by the constituents of hon. Members who are in the Chamber this evening, is something that we as a Government, and local authorities, cannot ignore. It is also true that we have to approach new communities on the basis of sustainable communities. Planning for water is part of that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what steps were being taken in relation to development to ensure that there will be an adequate water supply. The South East England regional assembly is about to submit the complete draft of the regional special strategy for the south-east, the south-east plan, to the Government. The plan is on course for submission on 31 March. It will then go through consultation, independent testing and public examination before being approved by the Government in 2008. That plan addresses the issue of water supply. Water companies are statutory consultees in relation to structure plans and planning authorities will be statutory consultees on water company resource plans. It is a two-way process so that both know what is going on.
	The Environment Agency, together with the water companies and the regional assembly, has undertaken modelling work on the impact of new house building on water supply. It has modelled six options based around the figures in the draft south-east plan and the impact of growth areas. It has concluded that a combination of supply and demand side interventions will mean that numbers can be accommodated. I want to make that clear. In relation to expansion of homes, numbers can be accommodated in terms of water resources.
	Interventions include an assumption on increasing water efficiency, and the possible construction of new reservoir infrastructure. New homes are much more water-efficient than existing stock, because of improvements in building regulations. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the draft south-east plan, policy NRM2, sets out policy for a number of reservoirs. There are five in the draft plan. I have a list of all the reservoirs that are planned for the south-east. New reservoirs are planned for Southern Water at Broad Oak, for South East Water at Clay Hill, for Portsmouth Water Ltd.—which supplies part of Sussex—at Havant Thicket and for Thames Water at Abingdon. There are proposals to extend existing reservoirs. The plans include raising Bewl for Southern Water and Mid Kent Water, where the proposal is to raise the banks and increase capacity significantly, the Bray enlargement for South East Water and Abberton for Essex & Suffolk Water. I was in Essex recently, talking to the local water company. I know that raising the banks at Abberton will increase the reservoir's capacity by 60 per cent. I am sure that the effect will be similar at Bewl. There is also provision for water transfers within regions.
	I shall go through some of the measures introduced in the 2003 Act to manage future demand for water resources. They include time limits for all new abstraction licences; the facility to revoke without compensation abstraction licences where serious environmental damage has been caused, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs about damage to river ecosystems; greater flexibility to raise or lower licensing thresholds according to local pressure on water resources; and the extension of licensing to abstractors of significant quantities who are not included in the current licensing system.
	Water company drought plans are a statutory requirement. Each water company must have plans to deal with drought, which has been helpful in dealing with the current situation. Water resource management plans are to become a statutory requirement. Consultation on the regulations is in progress and ends in April 2006. They will require water companies to look at future demand on a 25-year time scale. The 2003 Act also introduces new duties on the Secretary of State, regulators, water companies and public bodies to further water conservation. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley made the important point that people can take simple measures to reduce water consumption: for example, not leaving the tap running or fitting water-saving devices such as spray taps, low-pressure shower heads and twin-flush toilets. None of those devices is particularly expensive and can be installed when modernising a bathroom or replacing fittings. We are also addressing such matters in new regulations on housing.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned water scarcity status. As he said, an application from Folkestone and Dover has been granted and the company's case was subject to a six-month examination. Any water company can apply for water scarcity status and such applications will be treated on their merits.
	I was impressed that the hon. Gentleman had faced head-on the issue of water meters. They can be controversial, although the response from Folkestone and Dover was muted; 40 per cent. of the company's customers were already on meters, which may be part of the explanation. The company calculated that up to 70 per cent. of its customers would pay less on a meter, which is quite a significant number. Many people underestimate the benefits of water meters, although of course 30 per cent. will pay more because they are big users of water.
	Meters may pose problems for vulnerable groups, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley pointed out. I can reassure her, because the vulnerable groups regulations are designed to protect large families on low incomes and people with certain medical conditions. A pilot scheme on water affordability is running in the south-west, which is helping us to understand how we might refine the regulations to improve them and make them more effective. We have an open mind about such things, but we want to make sure that water metering would not cause suffering for the most vulnerable.
	There is an argument for metering; it reduces demand and is a fairer way of paying for water, but there is no water shortage in the north of England—the most severe pressure is in the south and the south-east—so there is not really a strong case for compulsory water meters nationally. We want an expansion in the use of water meters, but it should be undertaken as it is at present—by the combination of people volunteering to use them and installing them in new homes or when people move. That means that their use is constantly increasing, but people still have a choice. It also spreads the cost of fitting the meters, which has had to be borne by the companies. So I think that is going okay.
	Where there is water scarcity, though, there is clearly an argument for compulsory metering, as one tool. It is not the only tool. Companies have a responsibility to ensure that there is proper supply management, which includes such things as addressing leakage; that is taken into account when companies apply for water scarcity status.
	I must correct the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. He had me worried for a moment when he talked about washing cars with recycled water. When there is a hosepipe and sprinkler ban, it is permissible to use the bathwater to wash a car, or to take water out of the bath with a bucket and put it on the dahlias; that is not a problem and people do that. And of course one can collect rainwater, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley rightly said. In fact, I also benefited from a promotion by my local authority, which was giving away water butts. I was very enthusiastic. When I collected my water butt I found a party atmosphere, as my hon. Friend did. I suppose that the idea of getting something free from the council is always popular, so that probably explains the party atmosphere. It must have affected me, because I was so excited about my new water butt that I sawed through next door's downpipe when I connected it; but never mind—it is connected now.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned the range of measures that can be taken. She mentioned Water Wise, a group set up by the industry; I very much welcome that. We have also set up a water saving group, which I chair. It brings together the regulator, the Consumer Council for Water and industry representatives. The idea is to have working streams to look at ways of promoting water saving, in terms of demand and supply management, awareness and new technologies. That process is under way and I am grateful for the enthusiastic support that we have had from the entire industry. Water Wise is also represented on that group and I very much appreciate that.
	The hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) mentioned a constituency problem of reduced water pressure. I quite understand the point that she makes. Water pressure is sometimes reduced as a way of combating leaks, and leaks are a problem in the Thames region. Thames, like all water companies, has targets to reduce leakage, but it has been missing those targets in recent years. I am glad to say that currently it is on target and I very much welcome that, but it has much more to do.
	Funnily enough, I had the opposite problem in my constituency. People had complained of low water pressure, and I asked the water company whether it could be increased. The company was very co-operative; it increased the pressure, with the result that the water main burst in the street concerned and no one got any water at all. My involvement in that was played down.
	The hon. Lady asked for some advice on what she could do. I understand that there is an obligation and a duty on water companies to provide minimum pressure to pump water to the topmost storey of a block of flats.

Justine Greening: I am extremely grateful for that clarification, because I looked into the matter, and my understanding is that under the Water Industry Act 1991, the uppermost limit was 10 m. My flats were above that level, and there was no statutory duty to supply to any level above 10 m. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that. If I am incorrect, I shall be delighted.

Elliot Morley: I acknowledge that this is a local, constituency issue and an important one for the hon. Lady. I will find out exactly what the regulations are on that point, and I will write to inform her.
	On Thames Water, I want to make it clear that while it has met its target for this year, it has not met its overall target for leakages, and I do expect it to get on track in that regard.
	I do not want to say very much more, because I think that I have addressed the main points made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. I recognise that those points are important, but the water supply in the south-east is not in crisis, although neither we nor the companies can ignore the fact that reserves are very low. Of course, the companies have a duty to ensure that they match demand and resource management and to look ahead for future management.
	Some companies are also considering desalination. A small desalination plant is working in the southern region. Thames Water has also been talking about a desalination plant for peak management in the London region.
	Companies can apply for drought orders to minimise water loss and if they have to manage water by taking it away from non-essential users. No application for a drought order has been made at the moment. It may well be that, between now and the summer, we have a bit more rainfall. It may well be that we do not have a dry summer. As I say, we cannot be complacent about these issues, and we must look at the long-term weather patterns. We must take into account issues such as climate change.
	Droughts are not new—droughts come and go—but we need to be careful about whether we are seeing long-term trends. If we are seeing them, we must ensure that adaptations are made for them. That involves planning for water resource management, tackling issues such as leaking pipes and considering the powers available to water companies and their responsibilities in ensuring that water supplies are reliable.
	This country now has one of the highest standards of drinking water quality, internationally. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley is quite right to say that people should not order bottled water in restaurants; they should order jugs of water. Not only is ours some of the best quality drinking water in the world, but it has not been dragged halfway around the country or sometimes across the continent in trucks to be sold in restaurants. So on grounds of sustainability, I would certainly encourage people to ask for jugs of water in restaurants, not for bottled water. In fact, perhaps we should do a bit more of that in the Committees of the House of Commons, rather using bottled water.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs has raised some important and serious issues. I hope that I have reassured him that not only do we have measures in place to deal with drought and with future water demand, but we are working closely with the companies on their legal obligations to ensure the security of water supply, so that his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and the other hon. Members present tonight can be assured of a top-quality, reliable and continuous water supply.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Five o'clock.